Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco, 4:24-cv-07972

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Northern District of California.
Bonilla is a condemned prisoner who already has pending federal and state habeas petitions, both with appointed counsel.
His complaints presented nearly identical claims targeting federal and state judges and officials regarding his conviction and prior case handling.
Bonilla has previously been barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) due to filing three or more prior cases deemed frivolous or malicious.
The court identified a pattern of repetitive and frivolous filings by Bonilla and dismissed these latest cases with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility to proceed IFP under § 1915(g)	Bonilla should be allowed to proceed IFP	Barred as vexatious litigant, not in danger	Not eligible; no imminent harm alleged
Claims regarding conviction and case handling	Relief regarding conviction and past case adjudication	Courts and officials immune; improper claims	Claims barred; dismissed with prejudice
Judge's impartiality/recusal	(Named judge as defendant, but no recusal requested)	No grounds for recusal; frivolous filings	Recusal not warranted; judge presides
Repetitive/frivolous litigation	(Did not address pattern of filings)	Pattern of abuse, many frivolous cases filed	Cases dismissed as frivolous and abusive

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (claim challenging legality of conviction not cognizable under § 1983 unless conviction is invalidated)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts generally must abstain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings)
Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160 (denying repetitive, frivolous federal filings by prisoners)
Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385 (judicial immunity protects judges from suit on basis of judicial acts)