Bonilla v. Bender
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05364
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Katz, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the state and federal judges and county clerks he named as defendants; the related cases were closed.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against state and federal judges and county clerks. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal court cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla had already been barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed an immediate serious danger of physical injury. His complaints did not show that danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying under several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and interference with other courts.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Bender · No. 4:22-cv-05364
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the related case numbers listed in the caption, including 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 named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks. They presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in 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 rules.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality requiring recusal. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to 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.