Bonilla v. Marin County

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were described as nearly identical. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status

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

Other barriers to the lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified 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 specific rule applied to which complaint.

Rulings and disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also determined that the cases did not provide a basis to question Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case, but raised no specific allegations against her there. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.