Bonilla v. San Mateo County Superior Court It's Judges and Clerks

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The opinion lists multiple case numbers. Bonilla named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief related to his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those related proceedings did not provide the basis for this order's disposition, but the court referred to them in describing the circumstances.

Reasons for dismissal

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not analyze each of those grounds separately as to each case.

Ruling

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 those closed cases.

The court also addressed recusal, which is a request that a judge step aside because impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It held that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create that concern. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore did not recuse herself.