Bonilla v. Koehler
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01639
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla was not eligible for fee-free filing and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed; the defendants named in those cases were no longer required to litigate them in those actions.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Tara Desautels, et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. His complaints raised similar claims about his conviction and related attempts to challenge it.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from filing without paying fees unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical harm. The complaints did not show that kind of danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by legal rules protecting criminal convictions and limiting federal interference with ongoing proceedings.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, meaning these cases may not be refiled, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also said recusal was not warranted merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases, including one naming her as a defendant.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Koehler · No. 4:21-cv-01639
- 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 defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and his efforts to challenge it through related prisoner proceedings.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in federal court without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints.
Court’s reasoning
The court determined that the allegations did not show immediate danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required filing fees. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case, but that complaint made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.