Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04308
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. McElfresh, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without filing fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in his multiple civil-rights cases, including various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials. The order also directed the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. McElfresh, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases under Section 1983. The complaints named federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials, and sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases and petitions.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such a risk. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying the fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and precedents.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:20-cv-04308
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 6, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without an attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials. According to the order, the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The order did not resolve those proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction applied unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other stated barriers
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and precedents discussed in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide separate claim-by-claim analyses of those barriers.
Ruling and case administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the cases were not ones in which the presiding 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.
Disposition
The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the pending motions were terminated. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.