Bonilla v. Monterey County Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00969
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. San Francisco County, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because the complaints lacked imminent danger and faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights lawsuits against the named federal and state judges and other defendants were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. San Francisco County, a state prisoner filed multiple similar civil-rights cases without a lawyer against dozens of federal and state judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court found that his complaints did not show he faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury when he filed them. As a result, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees. The court also said that, even if he could proceed that way, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself based on the repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Monterey County Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-00969
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The opinion lists these case numbers: 22-cv-0275-PJH, 22-cv-0381-PJH, 22-cv-0432-PJH, 22-cv-0433-PJH, 22-cv-0666-PJH, 22-cv-0883-PJH, 22-cv-0885-PJH, 22-cv-0886-PJH, 22-cv-0888-PJH, 22-cv-0925-PJH, 22-cv-0966-PJH, 22-cv-0967-PJH, 22-cv-0968-PJH, and 22-cv-0969-PJH.
Bonilla named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner subject to that rule may proceed without prepaying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules or doctrines identified through Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying challenges to Bonilla's conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court also considered whether the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings. It concluded that these were not cases requiring recusal and cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.