Bonilla v. Averill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00824
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Jackson: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because IFP restrictions and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close them and return later submissions without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He sued various federal and state court judges over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, several legal rules barred the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself, directed the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Averill · No. 4:21-cv-00824
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
The order covers multiple cases filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla. The listed case numbers are 21-cv-00821-PJH, 21-cv-00823-PJH, 21-cv-00824-PJH, 21-cv-00825-PJH, 21-cv-00846-PJH, 21-cv-00847-PJH, 21-cv-00848-PJH, 21-cv-00849-PJH, and 21-cv-00908-PJH.
Bonilla, identified 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 complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his conviction.
Reason for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fees, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding IFP 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 imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if an IFP application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by one or more of the legal rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Based on those reasons, the court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Recusal and disposition
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the order stated that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered 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 those closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.