Bonilla v. Alameda County Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05461
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Judge Hamilton held Bonilla could not proceed without fees and dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named judges and county clerks were defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against state and federal judges and county clerks. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not file without paying fees because his prior filing history disqualified him from that procedure and his complaints did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court also said the cases were barred for other reasons and dismissed them with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05461
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the following related 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.
Bonilla named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks as defendants. The court said the complaints presented nearly identical claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction in this court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified under that provision may proceed without the fee only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified and that these complaints did not show such an imminent danger. The court therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the authorities it cited: 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 claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited bar applied to which complaint.
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 these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on September 28, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.