Bonilla v. Humphreys
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05395
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and the court ordered that later documents submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne 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 filing fees because he had not shown an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had qualified to proceed without fees, legal rules barred the lawsuits. It dismissed all the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk must also return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Humphreys · No. 4:22-cv-05395
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against government officials. The order covers the following related cases: 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.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against numerous state and federal judges and county clerks. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal court cases had been handled. The order also noted that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning that petition.
Reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla's ability to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously barred from that status may proceed without the fee only if he shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's request to proceed without the fee had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not separately analyze the application of each cited rule to each complaint.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the presiding judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.