Bonilla v. Clark
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05430
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Clark, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named state and federal judges and county clerks were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clark, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, 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 state and federal court cases.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also ruled that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred for other legal reasons. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the September 28, 2022 order and rejected Bonilla’s request that the judge’s impartiality be questioned because of his repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clark · No. 4:22-cv-05430
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims for certain violations of federal rights by state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The order also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in this court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those proceedings were cited as related matters.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction applies unless a prisoner shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines and authorities identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because the filings were repetitive and frivolous. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court stated that, absent legitimate grounds 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, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.