Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04999
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge Wilken, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying fees and his claims faced legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close those cases and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases without a lawyer against dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury, which his complaints did not show. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and suits against judges and courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:22-cv-04999
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts as defendants and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his imprisonment.
Filing-fee ruling
The court stated that, to the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying the filing fees.
Other legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and precedents, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and lawsuits against judges or courts. The opinion cited Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
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 directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court additionally rejected the contention that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion does not separately identify the disposition of each individual complaint beyond stating that the cases were dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.