Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00908
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Jackson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice; the judges named as defendants; and the clerk’s office, which was ordered to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple cases, he filed civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under a federal law known as Section 1983. The complaints named various federal and state court judges and sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been disqualified from that status, and his complaints did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when they were filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if his fee-waiver applications were granted, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to treat the filings as a reason to question her impartiality. She ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:21-cv-00908
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included various federal and state court judges. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his habeas petitions and other cases.
The order states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court for which he had appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
Fee-waiver status and dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from that status unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules or doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Other rulings and case closure
The court stated that the cases did not present circumstances in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 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.
The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on February 11, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.