Bonilla v. California Court of Appeal Sixth Appellate District

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included various federal and state judges and other officials. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal courts.

The order covers multiple cases, including Case Nos. 25-cv-1979-PJH, 25-cv-1980-PJH, 25-cv-2063-PJH, 25-cv-2064-PJH, 25-cv-2065-PJH, 25-cv-2178-PJH, 25-cv-2179-PJH, 25-cv-2180-PJH, 25-cv-2182-PJH, 25-cv-2183-PJH, 25-cv-2184-PJH, 25-cv-2444-PJH, 25-cv-2445-PJH, 25-cv-2513-PJH, 25-cv-2532-PJH, 25-cv-2533-PJH, 25-cv-2535-PJH, 25-cv-2536-PJH, 25-cv-2537-PJH, 25-cv-2538-PJH, 25-cv-2539-PJH, 25-cv-2540-PJH, 25-cv-2617-PJH, 25-cv-2618-PJH, 25-cv-2621-PJH, 25-cv-2629-PJH, 25-cv-2629-PJH, 25-cv-2532-PJH, 25-cv-2533-PJH, and 25-cv-2535-PJH, as well as the other case numbers listed in the order.

Reasoning

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits such a prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show imminent danger.

The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order states that these doctrines barred the lawsuits but does not separately explain which doctrine applied to which case or claim.

The court also addressed judicial impartiality. It concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. The order noted that the undersigned judge was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla’s cases and had issued the 74th order concerning Bonilla’s filings since April 30, 2020, involving 1,090 different cases.

Disposition

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