Bonilla v. Mendocino County Superior Court ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-2631-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-2632-PJH 7 24-cv-2633-PJH v. 8 24-cv-2634-PJH 9 24-cv-2643-PJH SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SUPERIOR 24-cv-2644-PJH 10 COURT et. al., 24-cv-2646-PJH Defendants. 11 24-cv-2647-PJH 12 24-cv-2648-PJH 24-cv-2649-PJH 13 24-cv-2650-PJH 14 24-cv-2651-PJH 15 24-cv-2652-PJH 24-cv-2712-PJH 16 24-cv-2713-PJH 17 24-cv-2714-PJH 18 24-cv-2715-PJH 24-cv-2741-PJH 19 24-cv-2983-PJH 20 24-cv-3010-PJH 21 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 22 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 23 24 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 25 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 26 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 27 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 1 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 2 defendants various state courts and federal judges. He seeks relief regarding his 3 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. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 17 cases.1 18 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 19 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 20 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 21 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 22 assigned to that judge). 23 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 24 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 25 26 27 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 63rd 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: May 29, 2024 3 4 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27