Bonilla v. Freeman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-01547
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed with prejudice Bonilla v. White, multiple civil-rights cases, denying fee-free filing and identifying additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the federal and state judges named as defendants, and the ten cases covered by the order.
What happened
Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey White, et al. involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. He sued dozens of federal and state judges and sought relief concerning his conviction or how other courts handled his cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from doing so and his complaints did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury when filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, other legal rules would bar the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return further documents without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question her impartiality. The order covered the multiple case numbers listed in the caption.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Freeman · No. 4:22-cv-01547
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covered ten case numbers: 22-cv-1119-PJH, 22-cv-1121-PJH, 22-cv-1122-PJH, 22-cv-1130-PJH, 22-cv-1224-PJH, 22-cv-1225-PJH, 22-cv-1546-PJH, 22-cv-1547-PJH, 22-cv-1548-PJH, and 22-cv-1549-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants. The court said Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The court also noted that he had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Court's reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant prior dismissals may proceed without paying fees only if he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying fees and that the allegations did not show such imminent danger at the time of filing.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by legal doctrines identified through the court's citations to Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not resolve the truth of Bonilla's underlying allegations or decide the merits of his requested relief.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a situation in which the undersigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to hear assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, meaning the dismissals barred refiling those claims in these cases. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed 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.