Bonilla v. Del Norte County
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-05252
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Del Norte County, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and procedural barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Del Norte County, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints against federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other officials. The complaints raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other court cases and petitions.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if his fee applications were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that there was no reasonable basis to question her impartiality. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Del Norte County · No. 4:20-cv-05252
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 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 for certain claims against government officials. The opinion lists these case numbers: 20-cv-02989-PJH, 20-cv-04791-PJH, 20-cv-04792-PJH, 20-cv-05250-PJH, 20-cv-05252-PJH, 20-cv-05591-PJH, 20-cv-05598-PJH, 20-cv-05600-PJH, 20-cv-05603-PJH, 20-cv-05652-PJH, 20-cv-05701-PJH, 20-cv-05774-PJH, 20-cv-05776-PJH, 20-cv-05827-PJH, and 20-cv-05847-PJH.
The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials. The opinion says 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. It also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Ruling
The court addressed Bonilla's requests to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only if he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines or rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of each complaint.
Additional orders and effect
The court rejected the suggestion that its impartiality could reasonably be questioned, citing the general duty of a judge to handle assigned cases absent legitimate reasons for recusal. The clerk was ordered 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 August 20, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.