Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-10017
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Marin County, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying procedural bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying the filing fee because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Marin County, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton rejected the request to question her impartiality based on the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court · No. 4:21-cv-10017
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases involved claims concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion lists multiple case numbers, including 21-cv-010015-PJH, 21-cv-010016-PJH, 21-cv-010017-PJH, 21-cv-010018-PJH, 21-cv-010019-PJH, 21-cv-010020-PJH, 21-cv-010021-PJH, 21-cv-010022-PJH, 21-cv-010024-PJH, 21-cv-010025-PJH, 21-cv-010026-PJH, 21-cv-010028-PJH, 21-cv-010030-PJH, and 21-cv-010031-PJH.
The opinion states that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the federal three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Court’s Rulings
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the 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 court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Impartiality Issue
Bonilla named Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton as a defendant in one case, 21-cv-010031-PJH. The opinion states that the complaint made no specific allegations against her. The court concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the judge’s impartiality and did not require her recusal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.