Bonilla v. Seeborg
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00654
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and his lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple civil-rights cases he filed; the cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law against various federal and state court judges. The cases challenged his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other court cases.
Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying the fee.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Seeborg · No. 4:21-cv-00654
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal and state court judges as defendants and raised similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed petitions for habeas relief and other cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The order concerned case numbers 21-cv-00651-PJH, 21-cv-00652-PJH, 21-cv-00654-PJH, 21-cv-00655-PJH, 21-cv-00656-PJH, 21-cv-00657-PJH, 21-cv-00658-PJH, 21-cv-00659-PJH, 21-cv-00660-PJH, 21-cv-00661-PJH, 21-cv-00662-PJH, 21-cv-00676-PJH, and 21-cv-00677-PJH.
Proceeding Without the Filing Fee
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without the filing fee.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without prepaying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several doctrines and decisions, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those bars.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote notes that Bonilla named that judge as a defendant in one of the cases but made no specific allegations against the judge.
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.