Bonilla v. Masunaga
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05399
- 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 filing fees and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named state and federal judges and county clerks were defendants, and pending motions were terminated.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, 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 was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because his complaints did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Masunaga · No. 4:22-cv-05399
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The cases had these docket 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 presented nearly identical claims and named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying fees may do so only by showing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the 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
Judge Phyllis Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.