Bonilla v. Chhabria
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00259
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Delgado, et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against dozens of federal and state judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court found 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 complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. It also said that its judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned and ordered the clerk to return future filings in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Chhabria · No. 4:22-cv-00259
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 20, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court identified the related actions by these docket numbers: 22-cv-0184-PJH, 22-cv-0185-PJH, 22-cv-0188-PJH, 22-cv-0189-PJH, 22-cv-0258-PJH, 22-cv-0259-PJH, 22-cv-0260-PJH, 22-cv-0268-PJH, 22-cv-0269-PJH, 22-cv-0270-PJH, 22-cv-0271-PJH, 22-cv-0272-PJH, 22-cv-0273-PJH, 22-cv-0274-PJH, 22-cv-0276-PJH, 22-cv-0277-PJH, and 22-cv-0278-PJH.
Filing-fee issue
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds cited by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain how each cited rule applied to each individual case.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The court also rejected the apparent basis for questioning the assigned judge’s impartiality, stating that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not make the judge’s impartiality reasonably questionable. A footnote states that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against that judge. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.