Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion states that Bonilla was proceeding without a lawyer in these federal civil-rights cases, although he was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.

The order covers the following case numbers: 24-cv-1206-PJH, 24-cv-1211-PJH, 24-cv-1486-PJH, 24-cv-1488-PJH, 24-cv-1490-PJH, 24-cv-1491-PJH, 24-cv-1492-PJH, 24-cv-1493-PJH, 24-cv-1494-PJH, 24-cv-1536-PJH, 24-cv-1565-PJH, 24-cv-1566-PJH, 24-cv-1567-PJH, 24-cv-1568-PJH, 24-cv-1569-PJH, 24-cv-1570-PJH, 24-cv-1571-PJH, 24-cv-1572-PJH, 24-cv-1574-PJH, 24-cv-1575-PJH, 24-cv-1689-PJH, 24-cv-1690-PJH, 24-cv-1709-PJH, 24-cv-1710-PJH, 24-cv-1711-PJH, 24-cv-1854-PJH.

Reasoning

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction permits such a prisoner to proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines or decisions identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court also addressed its own impartiality, stating that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in three of the cases.

Disposition

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

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on Bonilla’s inability to proceed without paying fees and on threshold legal bars, without deciding the underlying challenges to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.