Bonilla v. Del Norte County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that permits claims against persons acting under state law. The complaints named various state courts and federal judges as defendants. The court said the complaints presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas case and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings. The court noted his extensive history of filing similar cases.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally bars a prisoner with the required history of qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that the complaints did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which specific bar applied to which complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.

The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not present a legitimate reason for recusal.