Bonilla v. San Benito County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and sought relief concerning his 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 in this court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-Fee Status

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the federal three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Additional 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 rules and precedents identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

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 determined that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against her there.