Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints were nearly identical, 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 states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same district with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Rulings

The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits that status for a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepayment were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion does not separately describe a different disposition for any individual case.

Recusal and Case Closure

The court rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not present a basis for recusal.

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