Bonilla v. Court Clerk
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01223
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Beth L. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return further submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Beth L. Freeman, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal and state judges, court staff, and government agencies. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, his lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and decisions concerning challenges to convictions and interference with ongoing court proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Court Clerk · No. 4:21-cv-01223
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases were assigned multiple case numbers, including 21-cv-01090-PJH, 21-cv-01163-PJH, 21-cv-01188-PJH, 21-cv-01189-PJH, 21-cv-01190-PJH, 21-cv-01223-PJH, 21-cv-01224-PJH, 21-cv-01225-PJH, 21-cv-01242-PJH, 21-cv-01243-PJH, 21-cv-01244-PJH, 21-cv-01245-PJH, 21-cv-01246-PJH, 21-cv-01247-PJH, 21-cv-01248-PJH, 21-cv-01249-PJH, 21-cv-01250-PJH, and related cases identified in the order. He named various federal judges, state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies as defendants.
The complaints presented similar claims about Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases in state and federal court. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the district court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred Bonilla from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's applications to proceed without fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which bar applied to which complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The order addressed recusal as well. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge's impartiality. A footnote explained that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against that judge in the brief complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.