Bonilla v. Napa County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were described as nearly identical. Bonilla named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal habeas case and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis—meaning without paying the filing fee—under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed in forma pauperis.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed in forma pauperis were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case and stated that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a reason to question that judge’s impartiality.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.