Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints named various federal and state judges as defendants. The court said the complaints presented nearly identical claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court. The opinion’s caption identifies the defendants as “JUDGE HOWARD LLOYD et al.”

Fee-waiver status and asserted barriers

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, or possible request, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without prepaying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if a fee waiver 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 opinion did not separately analyze each case or claim under those authorities.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court additionally rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The order stated that Bonilla had filed many similar cases, including cases naming the undersigned judge as a defendant.