Bonilla v. Santa Clara County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is also described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel.

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

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules or doctrines 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 assign a separate one of those authorities to each case or claim.

The court also addressed its own impartiality because Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case. It concluded that the judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.

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.