Bonilla v. Santa Cruz Superior Court

Background

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

The order notes that Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement in the same district, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee waiver

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such a danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed under the filing-fee waiver.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court further stated that, even if a filing-fee waiver had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents cited in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis Hamilton additionally noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases and described it as extensive.