Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Alameda
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01640
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal judges, state judges, and superior courts were the defendants.
What happened
Bonilla v. Judge Tara Desautels involved multiple civil-rights complaints filed without a lawyer by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, against various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The complaints sought relief related to his conviction or other habeas proceedings.
Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not show such a danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and interference with other courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Alameda · No. 4:21-cv-01640
- 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 listed cases were Nos. 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, 21-cv-01876-PJH, and 21-cv-01952-PJH. He named various 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 habeas proceedings. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the district and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Inability to Proceed Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time. Bonilla therefore could not proceed in forma pauperis.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and interference with other courts. The opinion identified Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The court also addressed impartiality. It stated that the cases were not ones in which the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. A footnote stated that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case and that the complaint made no specific allegations against the judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any additional 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.