Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02761
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed 20 civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the 20 listed cases, including federal judges, state judges, and counties. The cases were closed, and future documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner filing without a lawyer, brought 20 similar civil-rights cases under a federal law allowing suits against government actors. He named federal judges, state judges, and counties as defendants.
Bonilla sought relief related to his conviction and to how state and federal courts handled his other cases. The court found that his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if that restriction were lifted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all 20 cases with prejudice, rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned, terminated the pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:21-cv-02761
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 21, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed 20 similar complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against government actors. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and counties. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The opinion also states that he had appointed counsel for a pending federal petition challenging his custody and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain how each cited rule applied to each individual complaint.
Ruling and case status
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.