1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-4623-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-4687-PJH 7 24-cv-5993-PJH v. 8 9 JUDGE JEFFREY S. WHITE et. al., ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 10 Defendants. CASES WITH PREJUDICE 11

12

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

. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 15 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 16 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 17 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 18 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 19 defendants various federal and state judges. He seeks relief regarding his underlying 20 conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 21 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 22 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under

(g) unless he is 23 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 24 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 25 No. 13-0951 CW. 26 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 27 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 1 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512

(1994), Younger v. Harris,

(1971), Demos v. U.S. 3 District Court,

, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 4

(9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 5 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 6 cases.1 7 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 8 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 9 See United States v. Holland,

(9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 10 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 11 assigned to that judge). 2 12 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 13 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: August 27, 2024 16 17 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 18 United States District Judge

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 66th 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 889 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 27 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases, though presents no