Bonilla v. Humboldt County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The order covers the cases listed in the caption, including Case Nos. 23-cv-6555-PJH, 24-cv-0018-PJH, 24-cv-0020-PJH, 24-cv-0021-PJH, 24-cv-0022-PJH, 24-cv-0029-PJH, 24-cv-0031-PJH, 24-cv-0367-PJH, 24-cv-0369-PJH, 24-cv-0381-PJH, 24-cv-0382-PJH, 24-cv-0383-PJH, 24-cv-0422-PJH, 24-cv-0423-PJH, 24-cv-0446-PJH, 24-cv-0453-PJH, 24-cv-0454-PJH, 24-cv-0455-PJH, 24-cv-0456-PJH, 24-cv-0458-PJH, 24-cv-0459-PJH, 24-cv-0460-PJH, and 24-cv-0461-PJH.

The court said the complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and state courts. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. This restriction is commonly called the “three-strikes” rule. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Bars Identified by the Court

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 order did not assign each cited legal rule to a particular complaint or claim. It characterized the filings as similar to Bonilla's prior cases and described his history of filing similar cases as extensive.

The order also addressed recusal. Although Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case, the court concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. The order stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

Disposition

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