Bonilla v. Napa Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials. The opinion says the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had appointed counsel in a separate federal habeas case and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Filing-Fee Issue

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision allows such a prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger, so 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 legal rules identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and attacks on federal or bankruptcy-court proceedings. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Order

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.