Bonilla v. San Mateo County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner, has a pending federal petition for judicial review of his imprisonment, and is represented by counsel in state court proceedings concerning that petition.

Reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only by showing that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal authorities: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain how each cited authority applies to each complaint. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case.

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 submits in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.