Bonilla v. Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05370
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Katz, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed under the fee-waiver rules and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
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 lawsuits against state and federal judges and county clerks. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court said Bonilla was disqualified from filing without paying the required fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he could file without paying those fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several decisions the court cited.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. It also directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them. Judge Phyllis Hamilton further ruled that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a basis to question her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Rogers · No. 4:22-cv-05370
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning that challenge.
Filing Without Paying Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the required filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits such a prisoner to proceed without paying fees only if he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court concluded that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the required fees.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
The court added that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying fees had been 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 does not separately explain how each cited decision applied to each individual lawsuit.
Impartiality
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court 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. 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.