Bonilla v. Katz
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07785
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Hill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and procedural barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also prevents him from proceeding without paying filing fees in these cases and directs the clerk to return future submissions in the closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Hill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against state courts and state officials. The cases raised similar complaints about his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his petitions and other cases.
The court found 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 complaints. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Katz · No. 4:20-cv-07785
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He represented himself in these cases. The defendants included various state courts and state officials. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
The order also noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition in the same court for which he had appointed counsel. It further stated that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Rulings
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had qualifying prior cases dismissed generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court separately stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.
The cases were dismissed with prejudice. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings, citing the principle that a judge generally has a duty to hear assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.
Disposition
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on November 9, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.