Bonilla v. Horner
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03351
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Horner, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and the claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Horner, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and court officials. The lawsuits raised similar issues about his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that his allegations did not show such a risk. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying because of rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and certain claims against courts and judges.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Horner · No. 4:20-cv-03351
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 14, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state 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 municipal and court officials as defendants. The court stated that the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court 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 law permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under several legal doctrines. The order cited the rule that generally prevents civil-rights suits from being used to invalidate an existing conviction, the rule requiring federal courts in appropriate circumstances to refrain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings, and authorities concerning claims against federal courts and judges.
The court also stated that the judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned and cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, an assigned judge has a duty to decide the case.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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.