Bonilla v. Humboldt County

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, 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. They presented similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases in state and federal court.

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

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such imminent danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

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 doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those doctrines.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court also concluded that its judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned and declined to recuse. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.