1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 25-cv-4482-PJH
Plaintiff, 25-cv-4527-PJH
7
25-cv-4658-PJH
v.
8 25-cv-4711-PJH
9 25-cv-4894-PJH
U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
25-cv-4895-PJH
10 DISTRICT JUDGES AND COURT
CLERKS et. al., 25-cv-5198-PJH
11 Defendants. 25-cv-5199-PJH
12 25-cv-5200-PJH
25-cv-5248-PJH
13
25-cv-5249-PJH
14 25-cv-5251-PJH
15 25-cv-5252-PJH
25-cv-5253-PJH
16
25-cv-5254-PJH
17 25-cv-5255-PJH
18 25-cv-5256-PJH
25-cv-5257-PJH
19
25-cv-5295-PJH
20 25-cv-5297-PJH
21 25-cv-5300-PJH
22
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
23 CASES WITH PREJUDICE
24
25
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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 various federal and state courts and government agencies. He seeks relief
5 regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and
6 federal 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. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous
19 cases.1
20 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality
21 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.
22 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate
23 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases
24 assigned to that judge).2
25
1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 76th
26
order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 1,116 different cases.
Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011.
27
2 Plaintiff names the Northern District as a defendant in two of these cases, though
1 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk
2 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated: June 30, 2025
5
6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.