Bonilla v. Villarreal
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00676
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s thirteen related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and future documents in those cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Bonilla v. Judge Joseph C. Spero involved multiple complaints by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself. He sued various federal and state court judges under a civil-rights law and sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without those fees, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself, explaining that the filings did not provide a legitimate reason to question her impartiality. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Villarreal · No. 4:21-cv-00676
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included various federal and state court judges. The complaints raised similar issues and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented petitions and other cases. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not make that showing.
Other stated legal bars
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 Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited bar applied to which complaint.
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.
Recusal issue
Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, Case No. 21-cv-00657-PJH. The court stated that the complaint raised no specific allegations against her and concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question her impartiality. Judge Hamilton therefore did not recuse herself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.