Bonilla v. Casse
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07701
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Clay: Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he could not proceed without fees and the claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple civil-rights cases he filed; the order also directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his state and federal cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status, and his allegations did not show an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if he could proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Casse · No. 4:20-cv-07701
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner described in the order as condemned, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order addresses the cases listed under numerous case numbers, including 20-cv-07561-PJH and 20-cv-07644-PJH through 20-cv-07716-PJH, with some numbers omitted from that range. The court said 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 order also noted 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 proceedings. The court did not state that those representations applied to the civil-rights complaints at issue.
Filing-fee status and other barriers
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from that status unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if permission to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 order did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of each civil-rights claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings, citing the principle that a judge generally has a duty to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further 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.