Bonilla v. Chhabria
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-03804
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without payment and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed several civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges and a correctional officers’ association. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, under several legal rules protecting criminal judgments and limiting interference with ongoing cases.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Chhabria · No. 4:21-cv-03804
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 28, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes him as a condemned prisoner who had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and state-court proceedings in which he was also represented by counsel.
In these cases, Bonilla named various federal judges and a correctional officers’ association as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
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 disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these allegations did not show such danger.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
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 provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
The court also addressed impartiality. It concluded that these cases were not ones in which the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The court cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons 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 ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and 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.