Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court Judges
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-08264
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and legal bars to the claims.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named federal and state judges and courts were defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court et. al., a state prisoner filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer against various federal and state judges and courts. He challenged his conviction and how other cases had been handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, legal rules barred the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court Judges · No. 4:24-cv-08264
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 25, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases.
The order covers the following listed case numbers: 24-cv-7317-PJH, 24-cv-7377-PJH, 24-cv-7379-PJH, 24-cv-7526-PJH, 24-cv-7527-PJH, 24-cv-7840-PJH, 24-cv-7841-PJH, 24-cv-7842-PJH, 24-cv-7880-PJH, 24-cv-8010-PJH, 24-cv-8261-PJH, 24-cv-8263-PJH, 24-cv-8264-PJH, 24-cv-8265-PJH, and 24-cv-8266-PJH. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning such a petition.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that Bonilla had been barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The allegations did not make that showing.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by legal rules identified in the order, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and claims against federal judges or courts. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality.
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. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.