Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-01549
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. White: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying fees and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the ten related cases. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and future documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey White, et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases without a lawyer against dozens of federal and state judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and had not shown an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if that payment request were granted, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton said the repetitive and frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about her impartiality. She ordered the clerk to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:22-cv-01549
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical 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 opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his conviction or detention in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Payment of Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying filing fees, unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without prepaying the fees.
Disposition
The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without prepaying fees 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 court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Impartiality and Case Closure
The court rejected the suggestion that the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one of the cases. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
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.