Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00886
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. San Francisco County’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. San Francisco County, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He sued dozens of federal and state judges and sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:22-cv-00886
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He is described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. He also has counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
The complaints were nearly identical. They named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief relating to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner subject to the statute may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time and therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court separately stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate merits determination of Bonilla’s underlying claims.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk 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.