Bonilla v. Chhabria
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04971
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Judge Wilken: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judges and state courts were not required to respond to the claims in these closed cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases without a lawyer against federal and state judges and state courts. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and his complaints did not show that danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Chhabria · No. 4:22-cv-04971
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those matters were cited as related proceedings, not decided in this order.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying under that provision and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and doctrines identified in the order, including the rule concerning civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction, the rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings, and other cited authorities.
The court also rejected any concern that the undersigned judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The order noted that Bonilla named the undersigned as a defendant in two cases but presented no legitimate reason for recusal.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
This was a procedural disposition rather than a decision on whether Bonilla’s underlying civil-rights allegations were legally correct. The court dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and stated procedural and other barriers to the lawsuits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.