Bonilla v. Mayfield ( 2022 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-5344-PJH Plaintiff, 22-cv-5364-PJH 7 22-cv-5370-PJH v. 8 22-cv-5388-PJH 9 22-cv-5389-PJH JUDGE STEVEN M. KATZ et. al., 22-cv-5390-PJH 10 Defendants. 22-cv-5394-PJH 11 22-cv-5395-PJH 12 22-cv-5396-PJH 22-cv-5397-PJH 13 22-cv-5398-PJH 14 22-cv-5399-PJH 15 22-cv-5400-PJH 22-cv-5404-PJH 16 22-cv-5405-PJH 17 22-cv-5430-PJH 18 22-cv-5431-PJH 22-cv-5459-PJH 19 22-cv-5460-PJH 20 22-cv-5461-PJH 21 22-cv-5462-PJH 22-cv-5464-PJH 22 22-cv-5465-PJH 23 22-cv-5483-PJH 24 22-cv-5484-PJH 22-cv-5487-PJH 25 22-cv-5488-PJH 26 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 27 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 1 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 2 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 3 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 4 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 5 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 6 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 7 defendants numerous state and federal judges and county clerks. He seeks relief 8 regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and 9 federal courts. 10 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 11 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 12 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 13 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 14 No. 13-0951 CW. 15 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 16 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 17 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 18 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 19 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 20 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 21 prejudice. 22 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 23 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 24 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 25 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 26 assigned to that judge). 27 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: September 28, 2022 f/ 6 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge 8 TAPJHALL\_psp\2022\Bonilla '22\Bonilla Dismissals13.docx 9 10 11 a 12 © 15 16 & it Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28