Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed several substantially similar pro se civil-rights actions filed by a state prisoner against judges and government officials. The court held that the plaintiff could not proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he had not shown imminent danger, and that the claims would otherwise be barred by doctrines including Heck, Younger, Demos, and Mullis; the cases were dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. Bonilla could not proceed in forma pauperis because he had been disqualified under § 1915(g) and the complaints did not show that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them.
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 were barred by doctrines including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
3. Whether the cases should be dismissed with prejudice and closed.

Disposition

dismissed