Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Contra Costa
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01681
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Tara Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after denying fee-waiver eligibility and finding the claims barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not satisfy the imminent-danger exception.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The lawsuits sought relief related to his conviction and other habeas proceedings.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton issued the order. She also rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the filings, including one case naming her as a defendant without specific allegations against her.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Contra Costa · No. 4:21-cv-01681
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants and presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and his self-represented habeas proceedings. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee eligibility
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 faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such an imminent danger. Therefore, 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 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 opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.
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 those closed cases.
Impartiality
The court also stated that these were not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. A footnote explained that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against her.
Judge
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on March 22, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.