Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law used to bring certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The order covers numerous related case numbers. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.

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

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court concluded that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal bars and disposition

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 rules 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 analysis of those grounds. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.

The order also rejected any suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.