Bonilla v. Del Norte County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, described in the order as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal judges and federal and state courts as defendants. They presented nearly identical claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations 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 Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not identify which specific bar applied to each individual case.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered 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 rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings, noting that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not present a reason for recusal.