Bonilla v. United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute identified in the opinion. He represented himself in these lawsuits. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state courts and government agencies as defendants. Bonilla sought relief related to his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his custody.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding that way unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, challenges to federal court actions, and challenges to bankruptcy court actions. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.

Other rulings and case closure

The court rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. It stated that the judge had a duty to hear assigned cases absent legitimate reasons for recusal.

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 submits in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.