Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01250
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also directed the clerk to close those cases and return future submissions in them without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges, court staff, and government agencies. His complaints raised similar challenges to his conviction and to how courts handled his other cases and petitions.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his prior cases disqualified him from that status, and his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, several legal rules would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:21-cv-01250
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows civil-rights claims against state actors. He proceeded without a lawyer. The cases named various federal judges, state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies as defendants. The complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Reasons for the ruling
The court addressed Bonilla’s effort to proceed without paying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and decisions, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, challenges to federal-court proceedings, and challenges involving bankruptcy-court proceedings. The order cited Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the impartiality of the judge handling the cases. A footnote noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, but that complaint made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.