Bonilla v. Mariposa County Court Clerk's Office

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named numerous county clerk’s offices as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that he is a condemned prisoner, has a pending federal habeas case, and is represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.

Filing-fee status

The court considered Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying the fee unless he shows that he was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court determined that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such a danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying fees 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 did not separately analyze each rule’s application to each complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.