Bonilla v. Humboldt County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various state superior courts and state judges as defendants. The order says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in this court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning the same general subject matter.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court stated 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 was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Grounds for Dismissal

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 doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate analysis of how each doctrine applied to each complaint.

Disposition

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 on January 13, 2023.