Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Court Clerk's Office

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for certain violations of federal rights by state officials. The complaints named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks as defendants.

The opinion says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other legal bars and disposition

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each rule's application to each complaint.

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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.

Recusal

The court also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reason to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore did not recuse herself.