Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-03448
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple listed cases, including courts, judges, and government officials. The order closed the cases and directed the clerk not to file further documents Bonilla submitted in 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 related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, several legal rules barred the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected the suggestion that the repetitive filings required her to step aside. The clerk was directed to return future documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:22-cv-03448
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 17, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints asserted nearly identical claims against dozens of federal and state judges, various state courts, and federal officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases. The opinion also noted that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel.
Filing-fee status and legal barriers
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion does not analyze the underlying claims on their merits.
Recusal and disposition
The court addressed whether the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It concluded that these cases did not present that situation and cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases. A footnote stated that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case, but the provided text does not include the rest of that sentence.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk 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 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.