Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases.

The opinion states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition in the same court challenging his conviction, where he had appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Filing-fee status and dismissal grounds

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

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 court did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of his claims against the judges and courts.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered 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.

The court additionally concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.