Bonilla v. Healey
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05394
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. Katz’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and stating several legal barriers would bar the lawsuits.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the state and federal judges and county clerks he named as defendants, and it directed the clerk to close the cases and return future 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 challenged his conviction and how other courts handled his cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, several legal barriers would prevent the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ruled that the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question her impartiality. The clerk was ordered to return future documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Healey · No. 4:22-cv-05394
- 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 law allowing civil-rights claims against government officials. The cases presented nearly identical allegations. Bonilla named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order addresses multiple cases, including Case Nos. 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.
Filing-fee ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows a disqualified prisoner to 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 concluded that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying 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 provide a separate explanation of how each cited decision applied to each claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court additionally stated that the cases were not ones in which its impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. Citing a federal appellate decision, it said that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to sit in cases assigned to that judge.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered the order on September 28, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.