Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07561
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. Clay and related civil-rights cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and citing several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed civil-rights cases; the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later documents without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clay, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner without a lawyer in these cases, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against state officials. The lawsuits raised similar challenges to his conviction and to how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. She directed the clerk to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:20-cv-07561
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order lists the following case numbers: 20-cv-07561-PJH, 20-cv-07644-PJH, 20-cv-07646-PJH, 20-cv-07647-PJH, 20-cv-07648-PJH, 20-cv-07649-PJH, 20-cv-07650-PJH, 20-cv-07651-PJH, 20-cv-07701-PJH, 20-cv-07702-PJH, 20-cv-07703-PJH, 20-cv-07704-PJH, 20-cv-07705-PJH, 20-cv-07706-PJH, 20-cv-07707-PJH, 20-cv-07708-PJH, 20-cv-07709-PJH, 20-cv-07710-PJH, 20-cv-07711-PJH, 20-cv-07712-PJH, 20-cv-07713-PJH, 20-cv-07715-PJH, 20-cv-07716-PJH, and 20-cv-07717-PJH is not listed in the provided caption. The order says the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases. It also notes that he had a pending federal habeas petition with appointed counsel and state habeas proceedings in which he was represented by counsel.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court addressed Bonilla's potential requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if he shows that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.
The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several precedents: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those bars.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge
The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.