Bonilla v. Lake County
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02808
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named defendants included federal judges, state judges, and counties. Pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and further documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Vince Chhabria, et. al., Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights cases under a federal law allowing suits against officials who violate constitutional rights. He named federal judges, state judges, and counties as defendants and challenged his conviction and how courts handled his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee under the prison-litigation law because his allegations did not show that he faced 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 other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lake County · No. 4:21-cv-02808
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 21, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and counties. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning such a petition.
Proceeding Without the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only when the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee in these cases.
Additional Grounds for Dismissal
The court 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 separately explain the application of each cited rule to each case.
Ruling and Case Administration
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.