Bonilla v. Nevada County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05606
- 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 filing-fee rules and other legal barriers applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named county clerks and federal judges were defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions 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 without a lawyer. He sued county clerks and federal judges over his conviction and how other state and federal court cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules. It dismissed all the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself, meaning she would not remove herself from the cases, and directed the clerk to close the cases, end pending motions, and return later filings without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Nevada County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05606
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named numerous county clerks and federal judges. The court said the complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The order covered the following case numbers: 22-cv-5562-PJH, 22-cv-5595-PJH, 22-cv-5596-PJH, 22-cv-5597-PJH, 22-cv-5598-PJH, 22-cv-5599-PJH, 22-cv-5600-PJH, 22-cv-5601-PJH, 22-cv-5603-PJH, 22-cv-5604-PJH, 22-cv-5605-PJH, 22-cv-5606-PJH, 22-cv-5607-PJH, 22-cv-5608-PJH, 22-cv-5610-PJH, 22-cv-5611-PJH, 22-cv-5612-PJH, 22-cv-5615-PJH, 22-cv-5618-PJH, 22-cv-5619-PJH, 22-cv-5621-PJH, 22-cv-5818-PJH, 22-cv-5819-PJH, 22-cv-5968-PJH, and 22-cv-6056-PJH.
Filing-fee status and other barriers
Bonilla sought, or might have sought, permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain which cited rule applied to which complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also 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 directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any additional 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.