Bonilla v. Superior Court of San Francisco County, The

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various state courts as defendants. The opinion says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal habeas petition in the same district with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Reasoning

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Accordingly, 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 the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also addressed the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings and stated that this was not a situation in which the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.