Bonilla v. Freeman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03396
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because IFP was unavailable and legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal and state judges, municipalities, and other officials. His claims concerned his conviction and how courts handled his petitions and other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if that restriction did not apply. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later filings without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned. She signed the order on July 14, 2020.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Freeman · No. 4:20-cv-03396
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 14, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for certain claims against government officials. The opinion lists these case numbers: 20-cv-02982-PJH, 20-cv-02994-PJH, 20-cv-02998-PJH, 20-cv-03167-PJH, 20-cv-03351-PJH, 20-cv-03354-PJH, 20-cv-03396-PJH, 20-cv-03404-PJH, 20-cv-04314-PJH, 20-cv-04462-PJH, and 20-cv-04524-PJH.
The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases in state and federal court. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Court’s reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla’s request, to the extent he sought it, to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said he was disqualified from proceeding this way unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court added that, even if an application to proceed in forma pauperis were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which cited rule applied to which case or claim.
The court also stated that its judge’s impartiality was not reasonably subject to question and cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on July 14, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.