Bonilla v. San Benito County Court Clerk's Office

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status

Bonilla sought, or might seek, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as proceeding in forma pauperis. The court said he had already been disqualified from that status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Court’s ruling

The court added that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, 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 the underlying claims beyond identifying those barriers.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and 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 for reasonably questioning the judge’s impartiality.