Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00473
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and future filings in those closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed several civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and municipalities. His complaints concerned his conviction and how courts handled his other cases and habeas petitions.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:21-cv-00473
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. The opinion also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning a similar petition.
In these cases, Bonilla named various federal and state court judges and several municipalities as defendants. The complaints presented very similar claims seeking relief related to his underlying conviction and to the handling of his filings and other cases by state and federal courts.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so 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 Bonilla’s allegations did not show such a danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents 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 did not provide a separate merits determination on the underlying conviction or on each individual claim.
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 United States v. Holland, the court stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.