Bonilla v. San Francisco County

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned 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 municipal and court officials. The court stated that the complaints presented similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases.

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

Filing-fee restriction

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless, when he filed a complaint, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Additional grounds for dismissal

The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which rule applied to which case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also ruled that the circumstances did not provide a basis to question the presiding judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.