Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief related to his underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The order also states that he is a condemned prisoner, has a pending federal habeas matter, and is represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.

Court’s reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees must show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 reach the underlying legality of Bonilla’s conviction or the court proceedings he challenged. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the undersigned judge’s impartiality.

Disposition

The court 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 submits 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 filing fees and on threshold legal bars, rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims.