Bonilla v. Wilken
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-06395
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Wilken, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not show imminent danger and his lawsuits were otherwise barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close them and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Wilken, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against various state courts. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, his lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. She ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Wilken · No. 4:20-cv-06395
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. The complaints named various state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases in state and federal court. The opinion also noted 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 Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such imminent danger.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
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 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 opinion did not separately explain which doctrine applied to which complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Recusal
The court also ruled that these were not cases in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Citing the duty of a judge to sit in cases assigned to that judge absent legitimate reasons for recusal, Judge Hamilton did not recuse herself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.