Bonilla v. Contra Costa County

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various state superior courts, state judges, and federal judges in the Eastern District of California. Bonilla sought relief related to his underlying conviction and to the handling of his other state and federal cases.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning his imprisonment.

Procedural ruling

The court addressed Bonilla's attempt to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, and certain claims against courts and judges. The opinion cites Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 27, 2023.