Bonilla v. U.S. District Court Northern District Oakland Judges and Court Clerks

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state courts and government agencies as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under that provision and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other barriers to the lawsuits

The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been 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 opinion did not decide the underlying conviction-related or case-handling claims on their merits. It also stated that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.

Recusal issue

The court rejected the apparent concern that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. Citing United States v. Holland, the court stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge. The opinion also noted that Bonilla named the Northern District as a defendant in two of the cases.

Disposition

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