Bonilla v. Alpine County Superior Court, 4:25-cv-05255

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner on death row, filed numerous pro se civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Northern District of California.
Bonilla is concurrently represented by counsel in pending federal and state habeas actions concerning his conviction.
The complaints repeatedly target state and federal courts and agencies, alleging improper handling of his conviction or other cases.
Bonilla moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) but has been barred from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) due to prior frivolous filings, absent imminent danger.
The court reviewed multiple nearly identical complaints, all lacking allegations of imminent physical danger.
The presiding judge has handled hundreds of similar filings and noted an extensive history of vexatious litigation by Bonilla.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for IFP under § 1915(g)	Bonilla should proceed IFP	Plaintiff is barred; no imminent danger shown	IFP denied
Claims challenging underlying conviction	Conviction and court actions were improper	Claims not cognizable under § 1983 (Heck)	Claims barred by Heck; dismissed
Frivolous/repetitive litigation	Bonilla has legitimate grievances	Prior history of meritless, repetitive cases	Dismissed with prejudice
Judicial impartiality/recusal	N/A (Bonilla did not request recusal)	No recusal warranted despite being named as party	No recusal; judge sits in judgment

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (claims attacking conviction not cognizable under § 1983 unless conviction is invalidated)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts must refrain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings)
Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160 (repetitive habeas petitions may be dismissed as frivolous)
Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385 (court and court staff immune from § 1983 suits for judicial acts)
United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (duty of judge to sit unless recusal is warranted)