1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 25-cv-5296-PJH Plaintiff, 25-cv-5351-PJH 6 25-cv-5352-PJH v. 7 25-cv-5353-PJH 8 25-cv-5595-PJH

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR

25-cv-5596-PJH 9 COURT et. al., 25-cv-5597-PJH Defendants. 10 25-cv-5598-PJH 11 25-cv-5600-PJH 25-cv-5601-PJH 12 25-cv-5602-PJH

13 25-cv-5603-PJH 14 25-cv-5604-PJH 25-cv-5605-PJH 15 25-cv-5606-PJH

16 25-cv-5900-PJH 17 25-cv-5903-PJH 25-cv-5905-PJH 18 25-cv-5906-PJH

19 25-cv-5907-PJH 20 25-cv-5909-PJH 25-cv-5910-PJH 21 25-cv-5912-PJH

22 25-cv-5915-PJH 23 25-cv-5916-PJH 25-cv-5917-PJH 24 25-cv-5918-PJH

25 25-cv-5920-PJH 26 25-cv-6015-PJH 25-cv-6051-PJH 27 25-cv-6052-PJH 1 25-cv-6054-PJH 25-cv-6055-PJH 2 25-cv-6056-PJH 3 25-cv-6057-PJH 4 25-cv-6058-PJH 25-cv-6059-PJH 5 25-cv-6060-PJH 6 25-cv-6140-PJH 7 25-cv-6141-PJH 25-cv-6142-PJH 8 25-cv-6143-PJH 9 25-cv-6144-PJH 10 25-cv-6273-PJH 25-cv-6274-PJH 11

12 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE

CASES WITH PREJUDICE

13

14 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 17 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 18 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 19 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 20 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 21 defendants various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law enforcement 22 officials. He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were 23 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. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 8 cases.1 9 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 10 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 11 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 12 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 13 assigned to that judge). 2 14 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 15 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: July 28, 2025 18 19 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 77th 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 1,162 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 27 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as a defendant in one of these cases, though presents