Bonilla v. U. S. Government
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-05993
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey S. White, Judge Hamilton dismissed the three civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s three civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. All pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and further documents submitted in those cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed three nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges, seeking relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases. The cases were 24-cv-4623-PJH, 24-cv-4687-PJH, and 24-cv-5993-PJH.
Bonilla is a condemned state prisoner who filed the cases without a lawyer. The court said he was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not make that showing.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines even if Bonilla could proceed without paying the fee. She dismissed all three cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. U. S. Government · No. 4:24-cv-05993
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 27, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed three nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The opinion states that Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his detention, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the “three-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, which can prevent civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, which limits federal court interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and two Ninth Circuit decisions, Demos v. U.S. District Court and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The court also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the judge who issued this order as a defendant in one case. It found that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.
Ruling
The court dismissed the three cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order states that dismissal was based both on Bonilla’s inability to proceed without paying the filing fee and on the additional legal bars to his lawsuits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.