Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court Judges

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal and state judges as defendants and presented nearly identical claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Reasoning

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The allegations did not show that he faced such danger at that time. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and authorities, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and suits against federal judges or courts.

The opinion also addressed the judge’s impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but does not provide the remainder of that sentence in the supplied text.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.