Bonilla v. Freeman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-05991
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's ten related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judge defendants were not required to litigate those claims.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal and state judges. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other state and federal court cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury, and his complaints did not show that danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying because of rules governing challenges to convictions, ongoing cases, and suits against judges.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Freeman · No. 4:24-cv-05991
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases were numbered 24-cv-5991-PJH, 24-cv-5992-PJH, 24-cv-6333-PJH, 24-cv-6334-PJH, 24-cv-6655-PJH, 24-cv-6656-PJH, 24-cv-6657-PJH, 24-cv-6658-PJH, 24-cv-6659-PJH, and 24-cv-6660-PJH. He named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief related to his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his custody.
Reasoning
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also rejected any suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Classification note
This is a procedural order. The court screened and dismissed the complaints based on Bonilla's inability to proceed without paying and on threshold legal bars, rather than deciding the underlying challenges to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.