Bonilla v. Villareal
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02646
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple federal civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The federal judges, state judges, and counties named as defendants were affected by the closure of those cases, and the clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and reject further filings in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints against federal judges, state judges, and counties. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. Because he had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees, he could not use that option. The court also said that, even if it had allowed him to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also determined that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question her impartiality. She directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Villareal · No. 4:21-cv-02646
- 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, the federal civil-rights statute. The defendants included federal judges, state judges, and counties. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his conviction.
Filing-Fee Status
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a prisoner subject to the disqualification to proceed without paying only if 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 in these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further ruled 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, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion describes these grounds as independently preventing the lawsuits from proceeding, but does not separately analyze each complaint or each defendant.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Impartiality
The court stated that the cases were not ones in which the impartiality of the undersigned judge could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.