Bonilla v. Simons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03354
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Simons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also ended pending motions and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases and named federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other officials as defendants.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been barred from that status and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return later filings without filing them.
Judge Hamilton issued the order on July 14, 2020, and rejected the request to question her impartiality because the order found no legitimate reason for her to step aside.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simons · No. 4:20-cv-03354
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 14, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion lists ten related 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 raised similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his filings and other cases. The opinion says the defendants included various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials.
The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines 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 analyze each complaint or claim separately.
Ruling and case status
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also ruled that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the 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.