1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 25-cv-1060-PJH Plaintiff, 25-cv-1061-PJH 8 25-cv-1062-PJH v. 9 25-cv-1063-PJH 10 25-cv-1064-PJH LINDA CLARK et. al., 25-cv-1186-PJH 11 Defendants. 25-cv-1187-PJH 12 25-cv-1231-PJH 13 25-cv-1233-PJH

25-cv-1235-PJH 14 25-cv-1439-PJH 15 25-cv-1440-PJH 16 25-cv-1461-PJH

25-cv-1721-PJH 17 25-cv-1978-PJH 18 25-cv-1981-PJH 19

ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE

20 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 21

22 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 23 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 24 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 25 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 26 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 27 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 1 his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 2 courts. 3 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 4 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 5 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 6 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 7 No. 13-0951 CW. 8 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 9 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 10 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 11 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 12 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 13 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 14 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 15 cases.1 16 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 17 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 18 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 19 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 20 assigned to that judge). 2 21 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 22 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 23 24 25 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 73rd 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 1,064 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 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: February 28, 2025 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