Bonilla v. Colusa County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05595
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office and related cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fee waiver and his lawsuits were otherwise barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The court also ordered the clerk to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office and related cases, the court dismissed all the cases with prejudice. The cases involved civil-rights complaints filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner.
Bonilla filed nearly identical complaints against county clerks and federal judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The court said the complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them, so he could not proceed without paying the required filing fees. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if a fee waiver had been granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to disqualify herself based on the repetitive and frivolous filings. She ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Colusa County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05595
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers, including 22-cv-5562-PJH and 22-cv-5595-PJH through 22-cv-6056-PJH. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against numerous county clerks and federal judges.
Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Fee-waiver ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction has an exception when a prisoner shows that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed in forma pauperis. The opinion further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The court cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.