Bonilla v. Federal Bureau of Investigation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-06002-PJH Plaintiffs, 20-cv-06003-PJH 7 20-cv-06114-PJH v. 20-cv-06293-PJH 8 20-cv-06294-PJH 9 20-cv-06295-PJH Defendants. 20-cv-06296-PJH 10 20-cv-06329-PJH 20-cv-06330-PJH 11 20-cv-06338-PJH 20-cv-06339-PJH 12 20-cv-06341-PJH 13 20-cv-06342-PJH 20-cv-06366-PJH 14 20-cv-06367-PJH 20-cv-06369-PJH 15 20-cv-06370-PJH 20-cv-06394-PJH 16 20-cv-06395-PJH 17 20-cv-06396-PJH 20-cv-06397-PJH 18 20-cv-06461-PJH 19 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 20 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 21 22 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 23 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 24 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 25 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 26 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7 27 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various state courts, 1 He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his various pro se habeas 2 petitions and other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 3 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 4 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 5 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 6 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 7 No. 13-0951 CW. 8 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 9 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 10 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 11 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 12 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 13 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 14 prejudice. 15 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 16 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 17 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 18 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 19 assigned to that judge). 20 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 21 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 21, 2020 24 25 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 26 United States District Judge 27