Bonilla v. Walton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07644
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also ended pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases under a federal law. He raised similar claims about his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because earlier rulings disqualified him from that status unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show such danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if that status were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was instructed to return any additional documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Walton · No. 4:20-cv-07644
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state officials. The complaints presented very similar claims. According to the order, Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases in state and federal court. The order also noted that he had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said he had been disqualified from proceeding without that payment unless he showed that 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 concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not conduct a separate merits determination of the underlying claims.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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. The judge also rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings, citing the duty of an assigned judge to sit absent legitimate reasons for recusal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.