Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-06397
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Hamilton, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and his lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed in them without paying filing fees because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Hamilton, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights cases without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his other 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 imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if it allowed him to proceed without paying. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended the pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself, stating that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not reasonably question her impartiality. The clerk was ordered to return future documents submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:20-cv-06397
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 21, 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 cases named various state courts as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his other self-represented habeas petitions and cases in state and federal court. The opinion also notes 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 Filing Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which rule applied to which case or claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Recusal
The court stated that these cases did not provide a basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore did not recuse herself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.