Bonilla v. Stout
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07708
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims faced legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the cases were closed. The order also directed the clerk to return further submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints against Clarence Don Clay and other state officials. The complaints concerned his conviction and the handling of his state and federal habeas petitions and other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had been barred from proceeding without fees unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury, which his allegations did not show. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines even if he were allowed to proceed without fees, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Stout · No. 4:20-cv-07708
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that the complaints presented very similar claims against state officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his various self-represented habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without filing 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 did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited decision applied. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Recusal and Case Closure
The court rejected any suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings. It stated that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to hear assigned cases. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the multiple cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.