Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorneys Office

Background

The order addresses multiple related cases, including the case numbers listed in the caption. Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed the complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for certain claims against government actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and state courts. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.

The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The order also stated that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.

Court’s Analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court held that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not separately analyze each complaint or explain how each cited rule applied to each individual claim.

The court also rejected the suggestion that its judge should step aside because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The court said that its impartiality could not reasonably be questioned on that basis. A footnote noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in three cases but made no specific allegations against her.

Disposition

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

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court dismissed the cases based on the restriction on fee-free filing and threshold legal bars, without deciding the underlying merits of Bonilla’s challenges to his conviction or to the handling of his other cases.