Bonilla v. Northern District of California Judges

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were nearly identical and named numerous county clerks and federal judges. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee waiver and other bars

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only if he shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not analyze the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The opinion additionally stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore remained the judge handling the cases.