Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-07972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judges and other officials were defendants in those cases.
What happened
Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco involves multiple civil-rights cases filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, against various federal and state judges and other officials. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
Bonilla filed the cases without a lawyer and sought to proceed without paying filing fees. The court said he was barred from doing so unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed, and found that his allegations did not make that showing. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was instructed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco · No. 4:24-cv-07972
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 16, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state officials. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that challenge.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified 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 complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other barriers identified by the court
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 legal rules and decisions identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and limits on federal district courts reviewing other courts' actions. The court also noted Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases.
Ruling
The court dismissed all the listed cases with prejudice. The opinion does not separately identify a ruling on each individual claim. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.
Judge Hamilton also rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases but did not provide further details about that case in the quoted text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.