Bonilla v. Ortiz
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-03318
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice and barred fee-free filing.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The order also prevented him from proceeding without paying filing fees and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against judges, courts, and government officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that danger when they were filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if fee-free filing were allowed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortiz · No. 4:22-cv-03318
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 17, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. The order covers the following related case numbers: 22-cv-1900-PJH, 22-cv-2674-PJH, 22-cv-2776-PJH, 22-cv-2871-PJH, 22-cv-2872-PJH, 22-cv-3247-PJH, 22-cv-3248-PJH, 22-cv-3275-PJH, 22-cv-3276-PJH, 22-cv-3318-PJH, 22-cv-3319-PJH, 22-cv-3322-PJH, 22-cv-3421-PJH, 22-cv-3422-PJH, 22-cv-3423-PJH, 22-cv-3424-PJH, 22-cv-3425-PJH, 22-cv-3445-PJH, 22-cv-3446-PJH, 22-cv-3447-PJH, 22-cv-3448-PJH, 22-cv-3449-PJH, and 22-cv-3450-PJH.
The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named dozens of federal and state judges, state courts, and federal officials as defendants. The order says he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The order also notes that he had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in the same court, with a lawyer appointed in that matter.
Fee-free filing and other legal barriers
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and prior decisions cited in the order, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and challenges to other courts' actions. The order did not provide a separate merits analysis of the underlying claims.
The order also addressed the judge's impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. A footnote added that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases but presented no legitimate reason for the judge to step aside.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.