Bonilla v. United States Attorney General's Office - San Franscisco

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a prisoner under a death sentence, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state courts and government agencies as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in this court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his detention. The court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, to the extent he sought to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying the fee unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee and that his allegations did not show the required immediate danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, challenges to federal-court proceedings, and certain bankruptcy-court matters. The opinion cited Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Ruling and case disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order also rejected any basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and threshold legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.