Bonilla v. Kern County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue for certain violations of federal rights. He proceeded without a lawyer in these cases. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state courts and government agencies as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.

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

Court’s Analysis

The court addressed whether Bonilla could proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from filing without fees may proceed without payment only if he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under that provision and that these complaints did not show the required imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were 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 does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of which legal bar applies to which complaint.

The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge should be disqualified because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It stated that these circumstances did not create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality and cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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 those closed cases.

Additional Information in the Opinion

The court stated that the undersigned judge was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla’s cases and that the judge had issued the 76th order concerning Bonilla’s cases since April 30, 2020. The opinion also stated that Bonilla had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.