Bonilla v. County Clerk's Office
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 21-cv-08636-PJH
Plaintiff, 21-cv-08638-PJH
21-cv-08888-PJH v.
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE
COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE, et. al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff presents very similar claims in these actions. 1 He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts.
To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, he 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 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
4 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 in these closed cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 8, 2021
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.