Bonilla v. Walton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05404
- 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 fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in his multiple § 1983 cases, including state and federal judges and county clerks.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner filing without a lawyer, brought 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.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and his complaints did not show an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, several legal barriers would prevent the lawsuits from going forward.
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 the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Walton · No. 4:22-cv-05404
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner under a death sentence, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. 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.
The order addresses the following related 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, 22-cv-5488-PJH.
Filing-fee restriction
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction applies unless a complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other barriers
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not resolve the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or to the handling of his other cases.
Ruling and case status
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the cases were not ones in which the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on September 28, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.