Bonilla v. Superior Court of San Francisco County

Background

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

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in this court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court further found that the complaints did not show that Bonilla faced imminent danger when he filed them, so he could not proceed under the filing-fee waiver exception.

The court added that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Ruling

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 the closed cases.

The court also addressed impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a situation in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Citing a Ninth Circuit decision, the court said that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.