Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01685
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. McElfresh, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also ended the pending motions and closed the cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. McElfresh, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The court said his lawsuits sought relief related to his conviction or his other habeas cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from proceeding without them, and his complaints did not show an immediate 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 rules and decisions. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself, explaining that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not reasonably question her impartiality. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:21-cv-01685
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 self-represented habeas cases. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show that such danger existed at the time of filing. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain which cited bar applied to which complaint. Based on those grounds, the court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Recusal
The court also addressed impartiality because Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one of the cases. It concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the judge’s impartiality. The court noted that the complaint naming the judge raised no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
The court dismissed the multiple 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. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.