Bonilla v. Judge Wilken
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04905
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge Wilken, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner lawsuits with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in his 13 related civil-rights cases; all of those cases were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Wilken, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed several nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued many federal and state judges and state courts, challenging his conviction and how other cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the lawsuits. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Judge Wilken · No. 4:22-cv-04905
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the related 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.
Bonilla presented nearly identical claims in the cases. He named dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts as defendants. The opinion says that he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the rules and precedents identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate merits determination of the underlying conviction-related claims.
The court also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the presiding judge as a defendant in two cases. It concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality and did not require the judge to step aside.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.