Bonilla v. Contra Costa Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The opinion says he proceeded without a lawyer in these actions. The complaints were nearly identical and named various state courts and federal judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way other state and federal cases had been handled.

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction allowed an exception only if he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of his complaints.

Recusal issue and disposition

The court rejected any suggestion that the presiding judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but, according to the opinion, presented no legitimate basis for recusal.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.