Bonilla v. San Diego County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05465
- 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 prepaying fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple cases he filed; the order also concerned the state and federal judges and county clerks he named as defendants.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven M. Katz et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases under a federal law allowing suits against government officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if fee waivers were granted, and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton stated that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future filings without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. San Diego County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05465
- 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, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against government officials. The order lists numerous related case numbers. Bonilla named numerous state and federal judges and county clerks as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The complaints presented nearly identical claims.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction permits a prisoner to proceed without prepaying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, he could not proceed without prepaying the fees.
Other legal barriers and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order did not conduct a merits determination of Bonilla’s underlying claims.
The court also stated that its impartiality could not reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge
The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.