Bonilla v. Greenwood
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00659
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton denied Bonilla permission to proceed without paying fees and dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying filing fees. The various federal and state court judge defendants were named in the closed cases.
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. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his self-filed petitions and other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and had not shown that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several 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 repetitive and frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about her impartiality. The clerk was instructed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Greenwood · No. 4:21-cv-00659
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, for which he had appointed counsel. He was also represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
The defendants included various federal and state court judges. The complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed petitions and other cases. In a footnote, the court stated that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, but that complaint made no specific allegations against her.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That law permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such a danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court added that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each rule’s application to each case.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk 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.
The court further declined to recuse Judge Hamilton. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question her impartiality and cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.