Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other court cases.

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

Filing-fee status and other barriers

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he could show that he faced imminent danger. The court found that the complaints did not show imminent danger at the time they were filed, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those principles.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The court additionally stated that these cases were not ones in which the presiding judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.