Bonilla v. Clark
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-08506
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clark, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because filing restrictions and other legal bars prevented them from proceeding.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's five related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Bonilla v. Clark involved multiple civil-rights complaints filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal and state court judges and sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger and said the lawsuits would also be barred by several legal rules if his fee applications were granted.
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 submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clark · No. 4:20-cv-08506
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 29, 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 opinion lists five related case numbers: 20-cv-08504-PJH, 20-cv-08505-PJH, 20-cv-08506-PJH, 20-cv-08697-PJH, and 20-cv-09152-PJH. The caption reproduced in the opinion names Judge Kelly V. Simmons and others as defendants. Bonilla's complaints presented similar claims concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court stated that he had already been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to 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 found that the allegations did not show imminent danger.
Other legal bars identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal 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 rules.
The court also stated that these were not cases in which the undersigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited United States v. Holland for the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to hear assigned cases.
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, and 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.