Bonilla v. Sonoma County

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and counties as defendants. The court stated that the complaints raised very similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases in state and federal court.

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

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee. That restriction has an exception when a prisoner shows that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain which rule applied to which case or claim.

Recusal and disposition

The court rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

The order 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 those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.