Bonilla v. Del Norte County Superior Court Judges

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits certain civil-rights lawsuits against government officials. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and other officials and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his state and federal cases had been handled.

The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption, including 24-cv-9255-PJH, 24-cv-9265-PJH, 25-cv-0004-PJH, and the additional cases listed there. The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in a prior related proceeding, Case No. 08-0471 YGR, with appointed counsel. It also noted that he was represented by counsel in state proceedings, Case No. 20-2986 PJH.

Filing-fee restriction

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 cannot proceed without paying the filing fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without fees under that rule. It found that the allegations in these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other grounds identified by the court

The court also stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each doctrine applied.

The court further rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The court cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to preside over cases assigned to that judge. The order noted that Bonilla named the assigned judge as a defendant in four cases but made no specific allegations against the judge.

Ruling

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