Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01870
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge Tara Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Tara Desautels, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The cases involved claims related to his conviction and other challenges concerning his petitions seeking relief from his conviction.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and decisions, including rules concerning challenges to convictions and interference with ongoing proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:21-cv-01870
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner who was representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or his other petitions seeking relief from his conviction. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that conviction.
Filing-fee status
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not make that showing. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several authorities: Heck v. Humphrey, which concerns civil-rights claims that would improperly challenge a conviction; Younger v. Harris, which concerns federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and two Ninth Circuit decisions identified as Demos v. U.S. District Court and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited authority applies to each complaint.
The court also rejected the idea that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings created a reasonable question about the assigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case and that the complaint made no specific allegations against the judge; the provided text of that footnote is incomplete.
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.