Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05074
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the cases were closed and future documents in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court involved multiple nearly identical lawsuits by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner. He sued dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts over his conviction and how other cases were handled.
Bonilla sought to proceed without paying filing fees. The court said he was barred from doing so because of earlier qualifying cases unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger.
The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if Bonilla were allowed to proceed without fees, citing several legal doctrines and decisions. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court · No. 4:22-cv-05074
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion addresses these case numbers: 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. Bonilla named dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without the fee after certain prior cases unless the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under this provision and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under 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 analysis explaining which cited bar applied to each complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The court noted that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in two cases but did not present a reason for recusal.
The clerk was ordered 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 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.