Bonilla v. Marin County Clerks Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. San Francisco County with prejudice because the complaints did not satisfy the filing requirements and faced other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also barred him from proceeding without paying the filing fee in these cases and directed the clerk to return further documents submitted in them without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. San Francisco County, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a prisoner under a death sentence, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued dozens of federal and state judges and sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred under several cited legal rules and cases. It dismissed all the cases with prejudice, ended pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future filings in them without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ruled that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had repeatedly filed frivolous cases. The order was dated February 22, 2022.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Marin County Clerks Office · No. 4:22-cv-00967
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for certain constitutional violations. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and were nearly identical. Bonilla named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The court noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. The court also noted that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
Filing-fee ruling
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee—called proceeding in forma pauperis—the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court found that the complaints did not show that Bonilla was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further ruled that, even if a request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited authority applied.
Disposition
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.
Recusal issue
The court separately stated that these cases were not ones in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.