Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01876
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla did not meet the imminent-danger exception to proceeding without filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple civil-rights cases he filed; the named federal judges, state judges, and superior courts were defendants.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Tara Desautels, et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. His similar claims concerned his conviction or how his self-filed petitions challenging it were handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and decisions. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also addressed Bonilla’s suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, stating that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a basis for recusal. The clerk was instructed to return future filings in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers · No. 4:21-cv-01876
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against government actors. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants. The court stated that the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his self-filed petitions challenging that conviction.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars a prisoner with qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without prepaying fees unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and precedents identified as 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 explanation of how each cited authority applied.
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 those closed cases.
Recusal Discussion
The court also rejected the suggestion that its impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against that judge. 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.