govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-4_26-cv-04514-0

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 California 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT 
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE et. al., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Nos. 26-cv-2202-PJH 
 26-cv-3038-PJH 
 26-cv-3043-PJH 
 26-cv-3546-PJH 
 26-cv-3549-PJH 
 26-cv-4420-PJH 
 26-cv-4425-PJH 
 26-cv-4427-PJH 
 26-cv-4430-PJH 
 26-cv-4432-PJH 
 26-cv-4434-PJH 
 26-cv-4512-PJH 
 26-cv-4514-PJH 
 26-cv-4515-PJH 
 26-cv-4516-PJH 
 
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 
CASES WITH PREJUDICE 
 
 
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 
U.S.C. § 1983. 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. 
Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 
defendants various county agencies, and federal and state judges. He seeks relief 
regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and 
federal courts. 

 
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 California 
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 
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 court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 
cases.
1 
Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 
might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 
See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 
reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 
assigned to that judge). 
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: May 26, 2026 
 
 
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 
United States District Judge 
 
1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 84th 
order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 1,324 different cases. 
Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 

Passage view · GavelSight