Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 23-cv-1282-PJH Plaintiff, 23-cv-1415-PJH 6 23-cv-1416-PJH v. 7 23-cv-1575-PJH 8 23-cv-1576-PJH JUDGE ELIA ORTEZ et. al., 23-cv-1577-PJH 9 Defendants. 23-cv-1579-PJH 10 23-cv-1580-PJH 11 23-cv-1581-PJH 23-cv-1582-PJH 12 23-cv-1625-PJH 13 23-cv-1627-PJH 14 23-cv-1667-PJH 23-cv-1668-PJH 15 23-cv-1669-PJH 16 23-cv-1670-PJH 17 23-cv-1671-PJH 23-cv-1673-PJH 18 23-cv-1728-PJH 19 23-cv-1729-PJH 20 23-cv-1730-PJH 23-cv-1731-PJH 21 23-cv-1732-PJH 22 23 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 24 25 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 26 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 27 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 1 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 2 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 3 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 4 defendants various federal and state judges and county officials. He seeks relief 5 regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and 6 federal courts. 7 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 8 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 9 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 10 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 11 No. 13-0951 CW. 12 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 13 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 14 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 15 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 16 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 17 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 18 prejudice. 19 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 20 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 21 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 22 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 23 assigned to that judge).1 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases, though presents no 1 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 2 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 14, 2023 5 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27