Bonilla v. Humboldt County Superior Court, its Judges and Clerks

Background

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

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction has an exception when a prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Dismissal

The court further stated that, even if an application 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 identify which cited rule or decision applied to each individual case. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.

Recusal

The court addressed the fact that Bonilla named the judge who issued the order as a defendant in one of the cases. It concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality and did not require recusal. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.