In re: to the Matter of Steven Wayne Bonilla's Void of Judgment ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-07639-PJH Plaintiff, 20-cv-07640-PJH 8 20-cv-07642-PJH v. 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA, et. ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE al., CASES WITH PREJUDICE 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 15 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 16 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 17 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 18 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various state courts, 19 federal judges and court officials. Plaintiff presents very similar claims in all these cases. 20 He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his various pro se habeas 21 petitions and other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 22 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 23 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 24 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 25 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 26 No. 13-0951 CW. 27 1 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 2 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 3 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 4 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 5 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 6 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 7 prejudice. 8 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 9 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 10 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 11 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 12 assigned to that judge). 13 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 14 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: November 9, 2020 17 18 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27