Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The order also noted 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. The court further noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.

Filing-fee status and legal barriers

The court held that, to the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

The court also stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.

The order additionally 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 create a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 29, 2024.