Bonilla v. Alpine County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05615
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying fees and the suits were otherwise barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return later submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against county clerks and federal judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
Bonilla sought permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court said he was disqualified from doing so because he had previously accumulated qualifying dismissals, and his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints.
The court also ruled that the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines even if he had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alpine County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05615
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the order as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order lists numerous related case numbers, including No. 22-cv-5562-PJH and the other cases identified in the caption. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against numerous county clerks and federal judges.
The court said Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The order also noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in that court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such a danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying the fees.
Other bars to the lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not separately explain which doctrine applied to which complaint.
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 further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The court additionally rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on October 18, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.