Bonilla v. U.S District Court San Jose

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named various federal and state judges as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction

The court addressed Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified under the statute may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under that provision and that his allegations did not show the required danger. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying had been 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 opinion does not separately analyze which specific bar applied to each case.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a basis for reasonably questioning the assigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.