Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00849
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Jackson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and his claims faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the defendants were the federal and state court judges named in those cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Teri L. Jackson, Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state court judges. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from using the fee-waiver process because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if he were allowed to use that process.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on the repetitive and frivolous filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers · No. 4:21-cv-00849
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints named various federal and state court judges as defendants. They raised similar issues concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions challenging his conviction and other court cases.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Fee-waiver status
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule 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 Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed under the fee-waiver process.
Other legal bars
The court added that, even if Bonilla’s fee-waiver application had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and precedents cited in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and claims against federal judges.
The court also addressed impartiality. It concluded that these cases were not ones in which the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.