Bonilla v. Alpine County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The listed cases are Nos. 25-cv-4482-PJH, 25-cv-4527-PJH, 25-cv-4658-PJH, 25-cv-4711-PJH, 25-cv-4894-PJH, 25-cv-4895-PJH, 25-cv-5198-PJH, 25-cv-5199-PJH, 25-cv-5200-PJH, 25-cv-5248-PJH, 25-cv-5249-PJH, 25-cv-5251-PJH, 25-cv-5252-PJH, 25-cv-5253-PJH, 25-cv-5254-PJH, 25-cv-5255-PJH, 25-cv-5256-PJH, 25-cv-5257-PJH, 25-cv-5295-PJH, 25-cv-5297-PJH, and 25-cv-5300-PJH.

The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state courts and government agencies. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases. The order also noted that he had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 which doctrine applied to which case.

Ruling and case closure

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.

The court additionally stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The order noted that the judge was the fourth judge assigned cases filed by Bonilla and that the judge had issued 76 orders since April 30, 2020, concerning 1,116 different cases, while Bonilla had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.