Bonilla v. Seeborg
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04305
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Seeborg, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and the claims faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple listed cases, including federal and state judges, municipalities, and other court officials identified in the complaints.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Seeborg, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal and state judges, municipalities, and other court officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and to how courts handled his petitions and cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if his applications had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also determined that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned and declined to remove herself from the cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Seeborg · No. 4:20-cv-04305
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 6, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials as defendants. The opinion states that the complaints presented similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, 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 in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows a person with the relevant prior qualifying dismissals to proceed without prepaying the fee only if the complaint shows that the person was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Additional legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee had been 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 reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered 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 court separately stated that its judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned and cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for disqualification, a judge has a duty to preside over assigned cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.