Bonilla v. Neiham
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00658
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying filing restrictions and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases against various federal and state court judges were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying filing fees because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Spero, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state court judges. His claims concerned his conviction and how courts handled his other cases and petitions.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and had not shown that he faced imminent 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. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended the pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on the repetitive and frivolous filings, including one case naming her as a defendant. The clerk was directed to return future documents submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Neiham · No. 4:21-cv-00658
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating federal rights. The defendants included various federal and state court judges. The complaints presented similar claims seeking relief related to Bonilla's conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition for release from custody in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state court proceedings involving such a petition.
Rulings
The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying under that provision and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court accordingly dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion does not separately identify which cited rule applied to which claim or case.
Recusal and case closure
Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases. The court stated that the cases were not ones in which her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The footnote adds that the complaint naming her raised no specific allegations against her.
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.