Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01248
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Beth L. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; he could not proceed without paying the filing fee, and the cases were closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal and state judges, court staff, and agencies. He challenged his conviction and how courts handled his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred even if that payment requirement were satisfied.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:21-cv-01248
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers multiple cases, including case numbers 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, and 21-cv-01250-PJH.
The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies as defendants. They presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases. The order also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction allows such a prisoner to proceed without paying 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 the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were 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 also addressed the fact that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case. The court stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the judge’s impartiality, and a footnote states that the complaint in that case raised no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.