Bonilla v. Humboldt County
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-02812
- 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 several legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named defendants and the clerk’s office were also affected by the closure and filing directives.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints against various federal judges, state judges, and counties. His claims concerned his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines even if his requests to proceed without paying were granted.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself based on the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Humboldt County · No. 4:21-cv-02812
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 21, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and counties as defendants. The court said that the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases in state and federal court.
The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
Reasoning
The court stated that, to the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
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 opinion did not separately analyze the application of each cited doctrine to each individual case.
The court also addressed impartiality. It stated that the cases were not ones in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court said that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.