Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-06325
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Seeborg, Judge Hamilton ruled Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s two civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he was not allowed to proceed without paying filing fees because the court found no immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Seeborg, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. One lawsuit named federal judge Richard Seeborg as the defendant, and the lawsuits sought relief related to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the lawsuits. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, and claims against federal judges.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:21-cv-06325
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 13, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. In one of the cases, he named federal judge Richard Seeborg as the defendant. The court said Bonilla’s complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. It further stated that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner shows that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court concluded that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate, detailed analysis of how each cited decision applied to each complaint.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. Citing United States v. Holland, the court stated 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 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.