Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The order covers the case listed above and numerous related cases, whose case numbers appear in the caption. The complaints named various federal and state judges and state courts. They raised nearly identical challenges involving Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.

The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.

Reasons for dismissal

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his cases.

Disposition

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 the closed cases.

The order additionally rejected any claim that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 29, 2024.