Bonilla v. Mendocino County Superior Court

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 were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled 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.

Filing-fee status and legal barriers

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger. The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 does not analyze the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered 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. The opinion also addressed the fact that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case, stating that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.