Bonilla v. Monterey County Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05488
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Katz: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named defendants included state and federal judges and county clerks.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against state and federal judges and county clerks. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from filing without them, and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, his lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Monterey County Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05488
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows certain claims against government officials for violations of federal rights. The opinion addresses numerous cases listed under separate docket numbers. Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
The complaints were nearly identical. They named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
Reasons for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying under that statute 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 had been 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 explain in detail which specific doctrine applied to which complaint.
The court also addressed impartiality, stating that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.