Bonilla v. Napa County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05130
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Napa County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s related civil-rights cases with prejudice and barred fee-free filing.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple related § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice. He could not proceed in those cases without paying filing fees because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury, and future submissions in the closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Napa County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed several nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal and state judges and courts. He challenged his conviction and how other cases had been handled.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from fee-free filing and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if fee-free filing were allowed, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to treat the repetitive filings as a reason to question her impartiality. The clerk was ordered to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future submissions without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Napa County Superior Court · No. 4:22-cv-05130
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple related complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims for certain violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
Fee-free filing and dismissal
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. “With prejudice” means the dismissals bar refiling the same cases.
Impartiality and disposition
The court also concluded that these cases did not present a basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality merely because the filings were repetitive and frivolous. The order noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in two of the cases but did not present a reason requiring recusal.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk 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 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.