Bonilla v. Clay ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-07561-PJH Plaintiff, 20-cv-07644-PJH 7 20-cv-07646-PJH v. 20-cv-07647-PJH 8 20-cv-07648-PJH 9 CLARENCE DON CLAY, et. al., 20-cv-07649-PJH 20-cv-07650-PJH Defendants. 10 20-cv-07651-PJH 20-cv-07701-PJH 11 20-cv-07702-PJH 20-cv-07703-PJH 12 20-cv-07704-PJH 13 20-cv-07705-PJH 20-cv-07706-PJH 14 20-cv-07707-PJH 20-cv-07708-PJH 15 20-cv-07709-PJH 20-cv-07710-PJH 16 20-cv-07711-PJH 17 20-cv-07712-PJH 20-cv-07713-PJH 18 20-cv-07715-PJH 20-cv-07716-PJH 19 20 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 21 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 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 1 state officials. Plaintiff presents very similar claims in all these cases. He seeks relief 2 regarding his underlying conviction or how his various pro se habeas petitions and other 3 cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 4 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 5 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 6 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 7 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 8 No. 13-0951 CW. 9 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 10 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 11 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 12 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 13 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 14 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 15 prejudice. 16 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 17 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 18 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 19 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 20 assigned to that judge). 21 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 22 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 9, 2020 25 26 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 27 United States District Judge