Bonilla v. Wilken
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04313
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Wilken, Judge Hamilton dismissed with prejudice Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s 16 listed civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the defendants and court officials named in those cases were affected by the closure of the cases.
What happened
Bonilla v. Wilken involved multiple civil-rights complaints filed without a lawyer by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner. He sued federal and state judges, municipalities, and other court officials over his conviction and the handling of his court cases and petitions.
The court found that Bonilla’s complaints did not show he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. Because he had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees under the applicable statute, he could not proceed without paying. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if that status were allowed, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton rejected the request to question her impartiality, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Wilken · No. 4:20-cv-04313
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 6, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same district, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The opinion does not describe the individual claims in each of the listed cases separately.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction has an exception when the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which principle applied to which case or claim.
The court also addressed the judge’s impartiality and stated that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.