Bonilla v. Superior Court of Marin County, The

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases listed various state courts as defendants. The opinion says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status and dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the usual filing fees. It held that he had been disqualified from using that procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such an imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and precedents identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits.

Disposition

The cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed 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.

The court separately rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton cited the general duty of a judge to sit on assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.