Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-03658/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-03658-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

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 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 Defendants. 

Case Nos. 20-cv-02986-PJH 

 20-cv-02987-PJH

 20-cv-02993-PJH 

 20-cv-02996-PJH 

 20-cv-03009-PJH 

 20-cv-03011-PJH 

 20-cv-03012-PJH 

 20-cv-03561-PJH 

 20-cv-03655-PJH 

 20-cv-03657-PJH 

 20-cv-03658-PJH 

 

ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 

CASES WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases. 

Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas petition in this 

court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 YGR. Plaintiff is 

also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In re Bonilla, Case 

No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7 

 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various federal judges, 

state judges, municipalities and other state and county officials. Plaintiff presents very 

similar claims in all these cases. He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or 

how his various pro se habeas petitions were handled by the state and federal courts. 

Plaintiff has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his 

Case 4:20-cv-03658-PJH Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

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 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. 

Dawson, Case No. 13-0951 CW. 

 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 

danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 

IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 

District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 

828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 

prejudice. 

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 

shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits after these cases are 

closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 11, 2020 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:20-cv-03658-PJH Document 3 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 2