Bonilla v. Spero
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04233
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he did not qualify for a fee waiver and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple related cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Spero, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal or state judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and to how his habeas petitions had been handled.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury, which his complaints did not show. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, legal rules independently barred the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned. The clerk was ordered to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Spero · No. 4:20-cv-04233
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 6, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for certain violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. Bonilla filed the complaints without a lawyer and also asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fees.
The complaints named various federal or state judges as defendants. The court said the cases involved claims about Bonilla’s underlying conviction or about the handling of his various state and federal habeas petitions. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had appointed counsel in a pending federal habeas petition and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis under the “three strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without prepaying fees only if he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed in forma pauperis in these cases.
Other barriers and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed in forma pauperis were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Impartiality
The court stated that these cases were not ones in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.