Bonilla v. Ryan
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05460
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding procedural barriers to Bonilla’s claims.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and required later documents submitted in those cases to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits filed by Bonilla without a lawyer. He sued state and federal judges and county clerks over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
Bonilla is a condemned state prisoner who also has a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and is represented in state-court proceedings. The court found that his filings did not show the immediate risk of serious physical injury required for him to proceed without paying the filing fee because of his prior filings.
The court also said that, even if Bonilla were allowed to proceed without paying the fee, legal barriers would prevent the lawsuits from going forward. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that later documents submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ryan · No. 4:22-cv-05460
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers, beginning with 22-cv-5344-PJH and including 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. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
Bonilla sought, or could have sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals may not proceed without paying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee unless that exception applied.
The court found that the allegations did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal barriers and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by legal doctrines identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, and suits against federal judges. The court did not resolve the underlying claims in Bonilla’s favor or the defendants’ favor.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the undersigned judge’s impartiality.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee restrictions and other threshold legal barriers without deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.