Bonilla v. Simons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00652
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he was barred from proceeding without filing fees and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state court judges were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Spero, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal and state court judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from filing without fees, and his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simons · No. 4:21-cv-00652
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He represented himself in these cases. The defendants included various federal and state court judges. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other court cases.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same district with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee determination and case bars
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the authorities it cited: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. A footnote stated that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, No. 21-cv-00657-PJH, but that the complaint made no specific allegations against her.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 29, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.