Bonilla v. Seeborg
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-06812
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Clay: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not qualify for fee-free filing and the suits faced legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s seven listed civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order terminated pending motions and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Clarence Don Clay and others, Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed several similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against state courts, federal judges, and court officials. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not make that showing. It also said that, even if his fee applications were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in them without filing them. The court also said its judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on the repetitive and frivolous filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Seeborg · No. 4:20-cv-06812
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 26, 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 defendants included various state courts, federal judges, and court officials. The complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the district court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee and that his complaints did not show the required danger.
Other legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the fee 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 did not analyze the underlying claims on their merits.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court also stated that these were not cases in which the impartiality of the undersigned judge could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Citing circuit precedent, the court said that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.