Bonilla v. Monterey County Court Clerk's Office ( 2022 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-5602-PJH Plaintiff, 22-cv-6123-PJH 5 22-cv-6240-PJH v. 6 22-cv-6399-PJH 7 22-cv-6400-PJH MADERA COUNTY COURT CLERK’S 22-cv-6478-PJH 8 OFFICE et. al., 22-cv-6479-PJH Defendants. 9 22-cv-6510-PJH 10 22-cv-6514-PJH 22-cv-6519-PJH 11 22-cv-6528-PJH 12 22-cv-6556-PJH 13 22-cv-6557-PJH 22-cv-6558-PJH 14 22-cv-6559-PJH 15 22-cv-6568-PJH 16 22-cv-6569-PJH 22-cv-6570-PJH 17 22-cv-6571-PJH 18 22-cv-6572-PJH 19 22-cv-6574-PJH 22-cv-6575-PJH 20 21 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 22 23 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 24 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 25 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 26 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 27 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 1 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 2 defendants numerous county clerks and state superior courts. He seeks relief regarding 3 his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 4 courts. 5 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 6 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 7 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 8 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 9 No. 13-0951 CW. 10 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 11 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 12 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 13 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 14 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 15 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 16 prejudice. 17 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 18 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: October 28, 2022 21 22 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27