Bonilla v. Alameda County et. al.

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those related proceedings were cited in the order but were not decided by this order.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

Bonilla was subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner with the specified history of dismissed cases from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he shows that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several authorities: Heck v. Humphrey, which can bar civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction or sentence; Younger v. Harris; Demos v. U.S. District Court; and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not assign a particular one of these authorities to each individual claim or case.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.