Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints named numerous county clerks and state superior courts as defendants and presented nearly identical claims. The requested relief concerned Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.

The order covers the following related case numbers: 22-cv-5602-PJH, 22-cv-6123-PJH, 22-cv-6240-PJH, 22-cv-6399-PJH, 22-cv-6400-PJH, 22-cv-6478-PJH, 22-cv-6479-PJH, 22-cv-6510-PJH, 22-cv-6514-PJH, 22-cv-6519-PJH, 22-cv-6528-PJH, 22-cv-6556-PJH, 22-cv-6557-PJH, 22-cv-6558-PJH, 22-cv-6559-PJH, 22-cv-6568-PJH, 22-cv-6569-PJH, 22-cv-6570-PJH, 22-cv-6571-PJH, 22-cv-6572-PJH, 22-cv-6574-PJH, and 22-cv-6575-PJH.

Court’s ruling

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate merits decision on the underlying conviction-related claims.

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 further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.