Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02764
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also ended the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return further 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. He brought similar claims concerning his conviction and how courts handled his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and earlier decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:21-cv-02764
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 21, 2021
Background
The order addresses multiple related cases, including Case Nos. 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. Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and counties as defendants. The order says the cases presented very similar claims seeking relief related to Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
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 permits a prisoner with that disqualification to proceed without paying only when the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional Bars Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 explaining which cited bar applied to which complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a basis for questioning the impartiality of the judge handling the cases. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on April 21, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.