Bonilla v. Jackson
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05396
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Katz: Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the state and federal judges and county clerks named as defendants, and the clerk handling the cases. The cases were closed, and further documents Bonilla submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Katz, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against state and federal judges and county clerks. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
Bonilla had previously been barred from filing without paying unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, his lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and court actions.
The court dismissed all the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return further filings without filing them. Judge Phyllis Hamilton also found that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on the repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Jackson · No. 4:22-cv-05396
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The cases had these case numbers: 22-cv-5344-PJH, 22-cv-5364-PJH, 22-cv-5370-PJH, 22-cv-5388-PJH, 22-cv-5389-PJH, 22-cv-5390-PJH, 22-cv-5394-PJH, 22-cv-5395-PJH, 22-cv-5396-PJH, 22-cv-5397-PJH, 22-cv-5398-PJH, 22-cv-5399-PJH, 22-cv-5400-PJH, 22-cv-5404-PJH, 22-cv-5405-PJH, 22-cv-5430-PJH, 22-cv-5431-PJH, 22-cv-5459-PJH, 22-cv-5460-PJH, 22-cv-5461-PJH, 22-cv-5462-PJH, 22-cv-5464-PJH, 22-cv-5465-PJH, 22-cv-5483-PJH, 22-cv-5484-PJH, 22-cv-5487-PJH, and 22-cv-5488-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against numerous state and federal judges and county clerks. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
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 opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited rule applied to each complaint.
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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court also determined that these were not cases in which the presiding judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 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.