Bonilla v. Clerk's Office Staff
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-06370
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clerk's Office Staff, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple civil-rights cases covered by the order. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clerk's Office Staff, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various state courts. The opinion says he sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if his applications to proceed without paying fees were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clerk's Office Staff · No. 4:20-cv-06370
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases. The opinion also notes 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 concerning that conviction.
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 was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required 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 several legal doctrines and precedents, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, certain challenges to federal court proceedings, and claims against federal courts. The opinion cites Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also determined that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not create a reasonable basis to question Judge Hamilton's impartiality and therefore did not require her to step aside. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.