absent legitimate 22 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 23 assigned to that judge
How later courts described this case
- absent legitimate 22 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 23 assigned to that judge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-5562-PJH
Plaintiff, 22-cv-5595-PJH
5
22-cv-5596-PJH
v.
6 22-cv-5597-PJH
7 22-cv-5598-PJH
IMPERIAL COUNTY COURT CLERK’S
22-cv-5599-PJH
8 OFFICE et. al.,
22-cv-5600-PJH
Defendants.
9 22-cv-5601-PJH
10 22-cv-5603-PJH
22-cv-5604-PJH
11
22-cv-5605-PJH
12 22-cv-5606-PJH
13 22-cv-5607-PJH
22-cv-5608-PJH
14
22-cv-5610-PJH
15 22-cv-5611-PJH
16 22-cv-5612-PJH
22-cv-5615-PJH
17
22-cv-5618-PJH
18 22-cv-5619-PJH
19 22-cv-5621-PJH
22-cv-5818-PJH
20
22-cv-5819-PJH
21 22-cv-5968-PJH
22 22-cv-6056-PJH
23 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE
24
25
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42
26
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas
27
petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471
1 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In
2 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7.
3 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as
4 defendants numerous county clerks and federal judges. He seeks relief regarding his
5 underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal
6 courts.
7 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases,
8 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is
9 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28
10 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case
11 No. 13-0951 CW.
12 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent
13 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an
14 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512
15 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S.
16 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
17 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with
18 prejudice.
19 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality
20 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.
21 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate
22 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases
23 assigned to that judge).
24 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk
25 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases.
26 IT IS SO ORDERED.
27 Dated: October 18, 2022
1 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
2 United States District Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27