Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07647
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and stating additional legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the cases and return any further documents submitted in them without filing them.
What happened
Bonilla v. Clay involved multiple lawsuits filed without a lawyer by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner. The lawsuits raised similar claims about his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if his fee-waiver requests were granted.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:20-cv-07647
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 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 opinion lists multiple related case numbers, including 20-cv-07561-PJH, 20-cv-07644-PJH, 20-cv-07646-PJH, and others. The opinion says the complaints presented very 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 court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
Reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla’s requests, or possible requests, to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying fees 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 does not separately explain which bar applied to which complaint.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered 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.