Bonilla v. Anthony ( 2022 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-1119-PJH Plaintiff, 22-cv-1121-PJH 6 22-cv-1122-PJH v. 7 22-cv-1130-PJH 8 22-cv-1224-PJH JUDGE JEFFREY WHITE, et. al., 22-cv-1225-PJH 9 Defendants. 22-cv-1546-PJH 10 22-cv-1547-PJH 11 22-cv-1548-PJH 22-cv-1549-PJH 12 13 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 14 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 18 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 19 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 20 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 21 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 22 defendants dozens of federal and state judges. He seeks relief regarding his underlying 23 conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 24 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 25 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 26 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 27 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 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).1 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: March 14, 2022 17 18 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases. Case No. 22-cv-