Bonilla v. Del Norte County

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 cases named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla 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 the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not analyze each rule separately for each case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and it ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.