Bonilla v. Chhabria
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04234
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying several legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal or state judge defendants; and the clerk, who was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against various federal or state judges. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of his state and federal petitions for review of his imprisonment.
Bonilla also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that his allegations did not show he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the cases. The court further said that, even if he could proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be blocked by several legal doctrines and statutes.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Chhabria · No. 4:20-cv-04234
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 6, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion identifies the cases as involving various federal or state judges as defendants.
The complaints were described as two similar complaints in which Bonilla changed the defendant’s name. The relief sought concerned his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his petitions challenging his imprisonment. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which cited barrier applied to which case or claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, stating that no legitimate reason for the judge to step aside had been shown. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.