Bonilla v. Orrick
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-06658
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose nine cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed; the defendants named in those cases; and the court clerk, who was directed to terminate pending motions and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He sued various federal and state judges and sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other court cases.
The court found that Bonilla did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fees. The court also said that, even if permission to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive filings. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Orrick · No. 4:24-cv-06658
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2024
Background
The order covers nine cases: Nos. 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, and 24-cv-6659-PJH, plus No. 24-cv-6660-PJH. Steven Wayne Bonilla, whom the opinion identifies as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar 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 or the handling of other cases in state and federal courts.
The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court further noted his extensive history of filing similar cases.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars and Disposition
The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the underlying conviction-related or case-handling claims on their merits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases.
Impartiality and Further Filings
The court also concluded that these cases did not present a basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The clerk was directed to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Result
The nine cases were dismissed with prejudice, all pending motions were terminated, and the cases were closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.