Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice multiple civil rights actions filed by condemned state prisoner Steven Wayne Bonilla. The court held that Bonilla could not proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he did not allege imminent danger, and that the claims would also be barred by doctrines including Heck, Younger, Demos, or Mullis. The court directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return further submissions without filing.

Holdings

1. Bonilla could not proceed in forma pauperis because he had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and his complaints did not show that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.
2. Even if an IFP application were granted, the actions were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
3. The four cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and the cases were closed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bonilla could proceed in forma pauperis despite his prior disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. Whether the complaints alleged that Bonilla was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them.
3. Whether the actions were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
4. Whether the cases should be dismissed with prejudice and closed.

Disposition

dismissed