Bonilla v. Plumas County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner lawsuits with prejudice because IFP rules and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple cases listed in the order, including county clerks and federal judges; the cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against county clerks and federal judges. He sought relief involving his conviction and the way his other cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status, and his complaints did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if that fee waiver were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Plumas County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05608
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints named numerous county clerks and federal judges as defendants. The opinion says the complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The opinion also states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, in which he has appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court identified the related proceedings by case numbers 08-0471 YGR and 20-2986 PJH, without relying on those proceedings to decide the merits of the new complaints.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from that status may proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified and that these complaints did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules and doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide whether Bonilla’s underlying claims were legally correct on their merits.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.