Bonilla v. Lake County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05600
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office et al. and related cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applicable legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits against county clerks and federal judges were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against county clerks and federal judges. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The court found no such danger. It also stated that the lawsuits would be barred even if his fee applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lake County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05600
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The caption lists numerous related case numbers. 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 in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Filing-fee issue
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 the fee may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under that provision and that these complaints did not show an imminent danger at the time of filing. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in 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 bar applied to which case or claim.
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 allegedly frivolous filings, citing the principle that a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Disposition
The cases were dismissed with prejudice; all pending motions were terminated; and the cases were closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.