Bonilla v. Ortez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07706
- 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 barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits against Clarence Don Clay and other defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The order also prevents him from proceeding without paying filing fees under the stated statutory restriction and directs the clerk to return later filings in the closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits under federal law against state officials. The lawsuits raised similar issues about his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an immediate serious danger of physical injury. His complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by rules protecting criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and the authority of other courts.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortez · No. 4:20-cv-07706
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The caption lists one case number, 20-cv-07561-PJH, and numerous additional related case numbers. The court stated that the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal petitions and cases.
The opinion also stated that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. It further stated that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning another petition.
Filing-fee restriction
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 doing so unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further held that, even if permission to proceed without paying the 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 opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
Recusal
The court also addressed whether the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings required the judge to step aside. It concluded that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned and cited the duty of a judge to decide cases assigned to that judge absent legitimate grounds for recusal.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any additional 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.