Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04311
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and faced other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The cases named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials as defendants.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights cases without a lawyer against federal and state judges, municipalities, and other court officials. His similar claims concerned his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that danger when they were filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if his applications to proceed without fees were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers · No. 4:20-cv-04311
- 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 named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases and petitions in state and federal court.
The opinion also stated that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody 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 been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Barriers and Ruling
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under legal rules identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal judgments, interference with ongoing proceedings, and claims against federal judicial officials. The court accordingly dismissed the cases with prejudice.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, stating that no legitimate reason for recusal had been shown. The clerk was ordered 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.