Bonilla v. Hernandez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00188
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Delgado, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying procedural bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose multiple § 1983 complaints were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judge defendants were also affected by the dismissal.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Delgado, et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal and state judges. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if his applications had been granted, the lawsuits were barred under several legal rules and prior decisions.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that recusal was not required.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hernandez · No. 4:22-cv-00188
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 20, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants. The claims sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal cases had been handled. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court ruled that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on earlier proceedings cited by the court. That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee 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 Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee had been 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 does not separately analyze each cited authority’s application to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Recusal
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote states that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against that judge in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.