Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-06481
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla was barred from fee-free filing and his claims faced legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice; pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and further documents submitted in those closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clay, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases against state courts, federal judges, and court officials. His complaints concerned his conviction and the handling of his other court cases and petitions.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from filing cases without paying the filing fee unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show that danger. It also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and interference with court proceedings.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:20-cv-06481
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants included various state courts, federal judges, and court officials. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same district with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court said he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a prisoner with the relevant filing history to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying 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 explaining which cited rule applied to which complaint.
The court also addressed impartiality. It stated that these were not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed 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 the closed cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.