Bonilla v. Spero
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-01224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey White, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because filing-fee rules and other legal barriers applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close them, terminate pending motions, and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against dozens of federal and state judges. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been barred from using the fee-waiver process and had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules, and it dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton stated that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases, including one naming her as a defendant. She ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future submissions without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Spero · No. 4:22-cv-01224
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. The cases named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled.
The order concerns these 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 order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee issue
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute prevents certain prisoners from proceeding without paying unless they show that they were in imminent danger of serious physical injury when they filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited rule applied.
Recusal issue and disposition
Bonilla named the judge who issued the order as a defendant in one of the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton stated that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned merely because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. She cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed 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.