Bonilla v. San Mateo County Superior Court Judges ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-7317-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-7377-PJH 5 24-cv-7379-PJH v. 6 24-cv-7526-PJH 7 24-cv-7527-PJH SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 24-cv-7840-PJH 8 SUPERIOR COURT et. al., 24-cv-7841-PJH Defendants. 9 24-cv-7842-PJH 10 24-cv-7880-PJH 24-cv-8010-PJH 11 24-cv-8261-PJH 12 24-cv-8263-PJH 13 24-cv-8264-PJH 24-cv-8265-PJH 14 24-cv-8266-PJH 15 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 19 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 20 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 21 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 22 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 23 defendants various federal and state judges and state courts. He seeks relief regarding 24 his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 25 courts. 26 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 27 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 1 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 2 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 3 No. 13-0951 CW. 4 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 5 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 6 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 7 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 8 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 9 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 10 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 11 cases.1 12 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 13 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 14 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 15 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 16 assigned to that judge). 2 17 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 18 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 25, 2024 21 22 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 23 United States District Judge 24 25 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 69th 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 937 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 27 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as a defendant in two of these cases, though presents