Bonilla v. Sonoma County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, in which he has appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Legal Bars

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under doctrines and 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 identify which bar applied to each case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered 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.

Recusal

Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, but the opinion states that the complaint made no specific allegations against her. Judge Hamilton concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question her impartiality and did not recuse herself.