Bonilla v. Lloyd ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-5991-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-5992-PJH 7 24-cv-6333-PJH v. 8 24-cv-6334-PJH 9 24-cv-6655-PJH JUDGE BETH L. FREEMAN et. al., 24-cv-6656-PJH 10 Defendants. 24-cv-6657-PJH 11 24-cv-6658-PJH 12 24-cv-6659-PJH 24-cv-6660-PJH 13 14 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 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 various 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 No. 13-0951 CW. 2 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 3 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 4 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 5 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 6 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 7 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 8 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 9 cases.1 10 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 11 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 12 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 13 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 14 assigned to that judge). 15 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 16 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 26, 2024 19 20 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 67th