Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 24, 2021

Bonilla v. Mayfield

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:21-cv-01247
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bonilla v. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims faced legal barriers.

Who this affects

Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affects any further documents he submits in those closed cases because the clerk was directed to return them without filing.

What happened

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal and state judges, court staff, and government agencies. His complaints raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his court cases and petitions.

The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, legal barriers would prevent the lawsuits from going forward. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on February 24, 2021. The order also directs the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bonilla v. Mayfield · No. 4:21-cv-01247
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Feb. 24, 2021

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.

The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified 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 Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Legal Barriers and Disposition

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines and authorities cited in the order, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and certain attacks on federal-court proceedings.

The order dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the request to disqualify the undersigned judge based on the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings, stating that the order did not present a proper basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.

Judge

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on February 24, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.