Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-06660
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Beth L. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not show imminent danger and legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s ten nearly identical civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judge defendants were not required to litigate the claims further in these cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger. It also said the lawsuits were barred under several legal rules, including rules concerning challenges to convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and claims against judges.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:24-cv-06660
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases were docketed under 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, 24-cv-6659-PJH, and 24-cv-6660-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges as defendants. The court said Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction in this court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from that status unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying conviction-related or case-handling claims on their merits. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on September 26, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.