Bonilla v. Spero
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-06656
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. He could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and further submissions in those cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Spero, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints against various federal and state judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been disqualified from that status and had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Spero · No. 4:24-cv-06656
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The opinion addresses case numbers 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.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning such a petition.
Filing-fee status
The court said Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not show that kind of danger. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying the 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 opinion did not decide the underlying conviction-related claims on their merits.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to hear cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the 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 those closed cases.
Note on the record
The supplied case name is “Bonilla v. Spero,” while the opinion caption reproduced in the provided text lists “JUDGE BETH L. FREEMAN et al.” as the defendants. The summary uses the supplied case name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.