Bonilla v. San Luis Obispo County

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order addresses the following related case numbers: 22-cv-5344-PJH, 22-cv-5364-PJH, 22-cv-5370-PJH, 22-cv-5388-PJH, 22-cv-5389-PJH, 22-cv-5390-PJH, 22-cv-5394-PJH, 22-cv-5395-PJH, 22-cv-5396-PJH, 22-cv-5397-PJH, 22-cv-5398-PJH, 22-cv-5399-PJH, 22-cv-5400-PJH, 22-cv-5404-PJH, 22-cv-5405-PJH, 22-cv-5430-PJH, 22-cv-5431-PJH, 22-cv-5459-PJH, 22-cv-5460-PJH, 22-cv-5461-PJH, 22-cv-5462-PJH, 22-cv-5464-PJH, 22-cv-5465-PJH, 22-cv-5483-PJH, 22-cv-5484-PJH, 22-cv-5487-PJH, and 22-cv-5488-PJH.

The complaints presented nearly identical claims against numerous state and federal judges and county clerks. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla's request, to the extent he sought permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from that status may proceed only if the complaint shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that Bonilla had already been disqualified under that statute and that these complaints did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. He therefore could not proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The court gave an additional reason for dismissal. It stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not separately analyze each complaint or identify which cited rule applied to which claim.

The court also rejected any suggestion that the undersigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the general duty of a judge to decide assigned cases when no legitimate reason for recusal exists.

Ruling and effect

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in these closed cases. The order was entered on September 28, 2022.