Bonilla v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-10031
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Marin County, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice for lack of imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in the 14 cases; the court also directed the clerk to close those cases and return later submissions without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Marin County, et. al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against the defendants named in those cases. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and statutes.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company · No. 4:21-cv-10031
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. The court stated that the complaints presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines and authorities identified by the court: 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 claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
Recusal Issue and Disposition
The court rejected the suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The court noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case, No. 21-cv-010031-PJH, but that complaint made no specific allegations against her in the portion of the opinion provided. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.