Bonilla v. Santa Barbara County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05462
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because IFP rules and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases against state and federal judges and county clerks were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was ordered to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., 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 concerning his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court said Bonilla had been barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ordered the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Santa Barbara County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05462
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers multiple related cases, including 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. The order says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s request, or possible request, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee may do so only if he was facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show that he faced such danger at the time of filing.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the 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 decide the underlying conviction-related claims on their merits.
The court also rejected the apparent suggestion that the judge should recuse because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. It stated that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned and cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and 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.