Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent physical danger and other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying filing fees under the court’s application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
What happened
Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, against judges and state courts. He challenged his conviction and the way other state and federal cases had been handled.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he qualified for that fee waiver, other legal rules would bar the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order. The order also stated that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a reason to question the judge’s impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court · No. 4:22-cv-05078
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue state actors for certain rights violations. The related case numbers were 22-cv-4905-PJH, 22-cv-4971-PJH, 22-cv-4999-PJH, 22-cv-5010-PJH, 22-cv-5074-PJH, 22-cv-5076-PJH, 22-cv-5078-PJH, 22-cv-5120-PJH, 22-cv-5125-PJH, 22-cv-5127-PJH, 22-cv-5129-PJH, 22-cv-5130-PJH, and 22-cv-5131-PJH. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts. The claims concerned Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The order stated that Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his detention, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those facts were included as background to the court’s handling of the multiple civil-rights complaints.
Filing-fee ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a person with qualifying prior dismissals to proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the person faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of which principle applied to which complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. 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.