Bonilla v. Alameda Cnty. Dist. Att'y

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers the multiple cases listed in its caption. Bonilla is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal petition in this court with appointed counsel and is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

The complaints presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

Filing-fee status

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees 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 court did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the other matters he challenged.

Disposition

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

The court additionally addressed whether the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive filings. It concluded that these were not cases requiring the judge’s recusal. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.