Bonilla v. Desautels
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01638
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the plaintiff, and the defendants named in his multiple civil-rights cases were affected. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close them and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer against federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The lawsuits sought relief related to his conviction and other proceedings.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate serious physical danger when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Desautels · No. 4:21-cv-01638
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases were assigned the following numbers: 21-cv-01638-PJH, 21-cv-01639-PJH, 21-cv-01640-PJH, 21-cv-01641-PJH, 21-cv-01681-PJH, 21-cv-01682-PJH, 21-cv-01683-PJH, 21-cv-01684-PJH, 21-cv-01685-PJH, 21-cv-01870-PJH, 21-cv-01872-PJH, 21-cv-01874-PJH, 21-cv-01875-PJH, and 21-cv-01876-PJH, and 21-cv-01952-PJH.
The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other prisoner petitions. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Grounds Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions discussed in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against the judge in that complaint.
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 the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.