Bonilla v. Superior Court

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the multiple case numbers listed in the caption. The complaints presented nearly identical claims, named various state courts and federal judges as defendants, and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal cases had been handled. The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction or confinement in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The allegations did not make that showing, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and prior decisions. The cited rules included limits on civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction, limits on federal interference with ongoing state proceedings, and restrictions on lawsuits seeking to control how other federal cases are handled. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.

Impartiality and disposition

The court rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. Citing the duty of a judge to handle assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for disqualification, the court concluded that the filings did not establish such a concern.

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. The order states that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar cases; its footnote begins by stating that the judge was the fourth judge assigned cases filed by Bonilla and that this was the 63rd, but the provided text cuts off before the statement is completed.