Bonilla v. Napa County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-02989-PJH Plaintiffs, 20-cv-04791-PJH 8 20-cv-04792-PJH v. 20-cv-05250-PJH 9 20-cv-05252-PJH 10 20-cv-05591-PJH Defendants. 20-cv-05598-PJH 11 20-cv-05600-PJH 20-cv-05603-PJH 12 20-cv-05652-PJH 20-cv-05701-PJH 13 20-cv-05774-PJH 14 20-cv-05776-PJH 20-cv-05827-PJH 15 20-cv-05847-PJH 16 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 20 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 21 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 22 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7 23 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various federal judges, 24 state judges, municipalities and other municipal and court officials. Plaintiff presents very 25 similar claims in all these cases. He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or 26 how his various pro se habeas petitions and other cases were handled by the state and 27 federal courts. 1 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 2 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 3 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 4 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 5 No. 13-0951 CW. 6 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 7 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 8 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 9 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 10 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 11 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 12 prejudice. 13 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 14 might be reasonably questioned. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th 15 Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to 16 sit in judgment in all cases assigned to that judge). 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: August 20, 2020 21 22 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27