Bonilla v. San Bernadino County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05484
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Katz, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases and the judges and county clerks he named as defendants.
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 judges and county clerks. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal court cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from filing cases without paying the filing fee unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that risk. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and attempts to control other courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. San Bernadino County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05484
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the case numbers listed in its caption, beginning with 22-cv-5344-PJH and including numerous related cases. 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 cases in state and federal court.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
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 in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee had been granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the legal rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not separately explain how each rule applied to each complaint.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The judge also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question her impartiality or require her recusal.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee restrictions and legal bars without deciding the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.