Bonilla v. Beatty
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07650
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice and closed. Pending motions were terminated, and the clerk was directed to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against state officials. The lawsuits raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and that his complaints did not make that showing. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if he could proceed without paying.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Beatty · No. 4:20-cv-07650
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers the following related cases: 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, and 20-cv-07716-PJH.
The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his various self-represented petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Filing-fee eligibility
The court considered whether Bonilla could proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified under that provision may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court cited prior proceedings stating that Bonilla had been disqualified under § 1915(g).
The court found that the allegations did not show an imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other grounds cited by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fees 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 provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited rule applied to each complaint.
The court also rejected the suggestion that its impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
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 submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on November 9, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.