Bonilla v. Burns
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00661
- 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 other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the cases were closed. The named federal and state court judges were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Spero, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal and state judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases and habeas petitions.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and had not shown an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if that status were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Burns · No. 4:21-cv-00661
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, 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. The court said the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status and dismissal grounds
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee 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 these complaints did not show such danger.
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 the legal rules identified in 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 explanation of which cited rule applied to which case.
Impartiality issue and disposition
The court stated that the cases were not matters in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. A footnote explained that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in Case No. 21-cv-00657-PJH, but that the complaint made no specific allegations against the judge.
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.