Bonilla v. Orange County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05487
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Katz, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple related § 1983 cases against state and federal judges and county clerks were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases and return future filings without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued state and federal judges and county clerks, challenging his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he was barred from proceeding without that fee unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and his complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and cases, including rules concerning challenges to convictions and interference with ongoing proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Orange County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05487
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner described in the order as condemned, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was also 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 held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.
Other barriers and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application 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 order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited doctrine applied to which complaint.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.