Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01190
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims faced additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the listed defendants, including federal and state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies, by closing the cases and terminating pending motions.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Beth L. Freeman, et al., Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.
Bonilla is a condemned state prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his conviction and separate representation in state proceedings. The complaints named federal and state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies as defendants.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his complaints did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that the lawsuits would be barred under other legal doctrines even if that filing-fee request were granted, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court · No. 4:21-cv-01190
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order addressed these 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. 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 in this court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fees, 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 his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Additional legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in 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 those doctrines.
The order also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case. It stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a basis on which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, and that the complaint against the judge raised no specific allegations.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.