Bonilla v. Spero
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01684
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named federal judges, state judges, and superior courts remained defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later filings without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The lawsuits raised similar claims seeking relief related to his conviction or his other self-filed challenges to his imprisonment.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if fee waivers were granted, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected the need for her to step aside, directed the clerk to end pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further filings in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Spero · No. 4:21-cv-01684
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer 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 way he had pursued other prisoner-release challenges without counsel.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning a similar type of challenge.
Filing-fee ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and decisions: Heck v. Humphrey, which can bar civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction or sentence; Younger v. Harris, which limits federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; Demos v. U.S. District Court; and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The court accordingly dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the cases were not ones in which Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
The court 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. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on March 22, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.