Bonilla v. Superior Court of California County of Alameda

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants included various state courts, federal judges, and court officials. The complaints raised similar issues and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases in state and federal court.

The order noted that Bonilla had an active federal petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. It also noted prior decisions disqualifying him from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not separately analyze the underlying claims on their merits.

The court also addressed the judge’s impartiality. It stated that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings, and it cited authority stating that judges generally have a duty to hear cases assigned to them absent legitimate reasons for recusal.

Disposition

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