Bonilla v. United States Attorney's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07117
- 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 the claims faced legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also directed the clerk not to file additional documents submitted in those closed cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Clarence Don Clay et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints against various state courts, federal judges, and court officials. The cases concerned his conviction and how his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases had been handled.
Bonilla was a condemned state prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition for which he had appointed counsel, and he was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The court said he was generally barred from filing cases without paying the filing fee unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. It found that his complaints did not establish that exception and said the cases would also be barred under other legal doctrines if his fee-waiver applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents without filing them. Judge Hamilton also declined to recuse herself based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. United States Attorney's Office · No. 4:20-cv-07117
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. He named various state courts, federal judges, and court officials as defendants. The opinion says the complaints presented similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.
The opinion also notes that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. He is represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings as well.
Filing-fee restriction and other legal barriers
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court stated that he had already been disqualified from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show the required imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if the applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order does not decide the underlying conviction-related claims in Bonilla’s favor or against him; it disposes of the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and the other legal barriers identified by the court.
The court also ruled that the cases did not present circumstances requiring the judge’s recusal. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not, by itself, create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any additional 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.