Bonilla v. Kern County Court Clerk's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05598
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, who filed the related cases without a lawyer, and the numerous county clerks and federal judges he named as defendants. The order closed all of the listed cases and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in those closed cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Imperial County Court Clerk’s Office, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner filing without a lawyer, brought multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against county clerks and federal judges. He sought relief connected to his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from filing without paying fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not show such a risk. It also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and restrictions on lawsuits against federal courts and judges.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. The court also declined to recuse the judge based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Kern County Court Clerk's Office · No. 4:22-cv-05598
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner under a death sentence, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The order covers the related cases listed in the caption, including 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.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against numerous county clerks and federal judges. The order says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally prevents a prisoner with the relevant filing history from proceeding without paying fees unless the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the principles 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 provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited principle applied to which complaint.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further 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.