Bonilla v. Alameda County
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02799
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Chhabria: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the defendants named in those cases were affected by the closures, and the clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, and counties. His complaints raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County · No. 4:21-cv-02799
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 21, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The order concerns the following related case numbers: 21-cv-02182-PJH, 21-cv-02643-PJH, 21-cv-02644-PJH, 21-cv-02646-PJH, 21-cv-02740-PJH, 21-cv-02761-PJH, 21-cv-02763-PJH, 21-cv-02764-PJH, 21-cv-02765-PJH, 21-cv-02799-PJH, 21-cv-02801-PJH, 21-cv-02808-PJH, 21-cv-02809-PJH, 21-cv-02810-PJH, 21-cv-02811-PJH, 21-cv-02812-PJH, 21-cv-02813-PJH, 21-cv-02814-PJH, 21-cv-02815-PJH, and 21-cv-02816-PJH.
The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and counties. The complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other state and federal cases. The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Prepaying Filing Fees
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute barred him from proceeding without prepaying fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding under that provision.
The court concluded that the allegations did not show the required immediate danger at the time of filing. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Other Legal Bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those legal bars.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Citing United States v. Holland, the court stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.