Bonilla v. Gallagher ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 23-cv-5457-PJH Plaintiff, 23-cv-5515-PJH 5 23-cv-5658-PJH v. 6 23-cv-5659-PJH 7 23-cv-5853-PJH MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR 23-cv-5854-PJH 8 COURT et. al., 23-cv-5855-PJH Defendants. 9 23-cv-5856-PJH 10 23-cv-5899-PJH 23-cv-5900-PJH 11 23-cv-5901-PJH 12 23-cv-5965-PJH 13 23-cv-5966-PJH 23-cv-5967-PJH 14 23-cv-5969-PJH 15 23-cv-6056-PJH 16 23-cv-6057-PJH 23-cv-6058-PJH 17 18 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 19 20 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 22 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 23 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 24 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 25 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 26 defendants various state courts and judges. He seeks relief regarding his underlying 27 conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 1 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 2 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 3 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 4 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 5 No. 13-0951 CW. 6 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 7 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 8 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 9 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 10 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 11 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 12 prejudice. 13 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 14 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 15 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 16 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 17 assigned to that judge).1 18 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 19 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: November 27, 2023 22 23 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 24 United States District Judge 25 26 1 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases and seeks recusal. Case No. 23-cv-5965-PJH. His arguments for recusal are meritless and the request is 27 denied in light of plaintiff’s numerous similar filings for many years. The court cannot