Bonilla v. Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03347
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Rogers, 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 order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Rogers, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal or state judges. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and asked to proceed without paying court fees.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and dismissed all the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future filings in those cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Rogers · No. 4:20-cv-03347
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 6, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He also sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The complaints named various federal or state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his pro se habeas petitions. The opinion states that the complaints were versions of two similar complaints in which Bonilla changed the defendant’s name.
The opinion also states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally prevents a prisoner with qualifying prior cases from proceeding without paying unless 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 that he faced such imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines or authorities identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain how each authority applied to each case.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also ruled that the cases did not present circumstances in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on July 6, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.