Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-07323
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice and closed them.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s 23 related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, preventing those cases from continuing; the court also terminated pending motions and closed the cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been disqualified from proceeding without such payment under the prisoner-litigation statute, and his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if his applications to proceed without paying were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office · No. 4:24-cv-07323
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against government actors. The order covers the following related case numbers: 24-cv-6883-PJH, 24-cv-6885-PJH, 24-cv-6924-PJH, 24-cv-6925-PJH, 24-cv-7260-PJH, 24-cv-7261-PJH, 24-cv-7263-PJH, 24-cv-7264-PJH, 24-cv-7265-PJH, 24-cv-7311-PJH, 24-cv-7312-PJH, 24-cv-7313-PJH, 24-cv-7315-PJH, 24-cv-7316-PJH, 24-cv-7319-PJH, 24-cv-7320-PJH, 24-cv-7321-PJH, 24-cv-7322-PJH, 24-cv-7323-PJH, 24-cv-7378-PJH, 24-cv-7380-PJH, 24-cv-7381-PJH, and 24-cv-7382-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other cases had been handled. The order also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Reasoning
The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. The order therefore states that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
The order separately addressed the request, or issue, concerning the judge’s impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The order noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in three cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.