Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against government actors. He filed the complaints without a lawyer and named various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other petitions challenging his imprisonment.

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

Filing-fee ruling

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or decisions 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 resolve the underlying conviction-related claims on their merits.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also directed 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 opinion states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against her; the excerpt provided ends before completing the court’s discussion of that point.