Bonilla v. Lee
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-08849
- 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 after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close those cases, terminate pending motions, and return later documents submitted in them without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and other officials. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lee · No. 4:24-cv-08849
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 16, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whom the order describes as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and other officials and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or to the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his detention. The court additionally noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee determination
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified under that statute may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the rules and decisions identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited authority applied.
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.
The order rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases and stated that the judge was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla’s cases and that this was the 70th such case. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.