Bonilla v. Del Norte County Superior Court

Background

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

The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in this court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.

Filing-fee determination

The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified Bonilla from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 court did not decide the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or to the handling of his other cases.

The court also addressed Bonilla’s naming of the judge as a defendant in one case. It concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.

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.