Bonilla v. Mendocino County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants. The opinion says the cases presented very similar claims about Bonilla’s underlying conviction and about how his self-filed petitions for review of custody and other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning that petition.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court explained that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on earlier proceedings. Under that provision, a prisoner generally may not proceed without paying after accumulating qualifying prior dismissals unless the complaint alleges an immediate danger of serious physical harm.

The court found that the complaints did not show that Bonilla faced such an immediate danger when he filed them. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Legal Barriers

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal authorities: Heck v. Humphrey, concerning civil-rights claims that would improperly challenge a conviction; Younger v. Harris, concerning federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and Demos v. U.S. District Court and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, concerning limits on actions challenging judicial proceedings or decisions. The opinion did not separately analyze each complaint or claim under those authorities.

The court also stated that the cases did not present a situation in which its impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, it said that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

Disposition

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