Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Del Norte
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-05774
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights lawsuits with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and municipal and court officials named as defendants, although the opinion does not analyze each defendant separately.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Del Norte, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges, municipalities, and court officials. The lawsuits raised similar complaints about his conviction and how courts handled his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines, and it dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned. She directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Del Norte · No. 4:20-cv-05774
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and municipal and court officials as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.
The opinion also stated that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that, to the extent Bonilla sought to proceed without paying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred him from doing so because he had previously been disqualified from that status. The statute permits such a prisoner to proceed without paying only when he alleges that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited doctrine applied to which lawsuit.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that the cases did not present circumstances in which the assigned 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.