Bonilla v. Maier
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00535
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the parties in the eight related civil-rights cases, including the judges and municipalities he named as defendants.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Vince G. Chhabria, et. al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed several civil-rights cases against federal and state judges and municipalities. The cases challenged his conviction or the way courts handled his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee 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 could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was instructed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Maier · No. 4:21-cv-00535
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion lists eight related case numbers: 20-cv-09392-PJH, 20-cv-09419-PJH, 21-cv-00449-PJH, 21-cv-00473-PJH, 21-cv-00476-PJH, 21-cv-00535-PJH, 21-cv-00536-PJH, and 21-cv-00576-PJH.
The complaints named various federal and state court judges and several municipalities. The opinion says the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his other petitions and cases. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a separate federal petition concerning his conviction, with appointed counsel, and state-court proceedings in which he was represented by counsel.
Reasoning
Bonilla sought, or might have sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if permission to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately analyze each complaint or explain which cited bar applied to which claim.
The court also rejected any basis for questioning the presiding judge's impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide 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 further 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.