Bonilla v. Maier
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07704
- 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 fees and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple § 1983 cases covered by the order; the clerk was directed to close those cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, et. al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against state officials. The lawsuits raised similar issues involving his conviction and the handling of his state and federal cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by legal rules identified in the order. The cases were dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repeated filings. The clerk was directed to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Maier · No. 4:20-cv-07704
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
The order addresses multiple civil-rights cases that Steven Wayne Bonilla filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identifies Bonilla as a state prisoner and says he is condemned. He filed the cases without a lawyer and presented similar claims in each one. The claims concerned his underlying conviction and the handling of his various self-filed habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
The caption lists numerous related case numbers, including 20-cv-07561-PJH and 20-cv-07644-PJH through 20-cv-07716-PJH, with some numbers omitted from that range.
Court's reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding this way unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the opinion, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the underlying merits of Bonilla's claims.
The court also addressed impartiality. It said the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a situation in which the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The order cited the principle 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 directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and other threshold legal bars without deciding whether Bonilla was right on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.