Bonilla v. Chhabria
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07642
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Superior Court of Alameda, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s three civil-rights cases with prejudice because he did not qualify for a fee waiver and his suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s three federal civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also ended pending motions and closed the cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Superior Court of Alameda, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed three civil-rights cases under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. He challenged his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and had not shown an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had qualified, the cases would be barred by several legal doctrines and statutes.
Judge Hamilton dismissed all three cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any additional documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Chhabria · No. 4:20-cv-07642
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed three complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. He named various state courts, federal judges, and court officials as defendants. His claims concerned his underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
The order states that Bonilla had appointed counsel in a pending federal petition and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The three complaints presented very similar claims.
Rulings
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed in the cases without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without prepaying fees only if he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further ruled that, even if Bonilla’s applications had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the order, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and claims involving the handling of federal court proceedings. The order did not decide the underlying merits of Bonilla’s allegations.
The court also determined that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The cases were dismissed with prejudice. 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.
Judge
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on November 9, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.