Bonilla v. Judge Gonzalez-Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01287
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were also barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and court officials. He sought relief concerning courts. He also had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and state proceedings with counsel.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been disqualified from proceeding without fees under a federal prisoner-filings rule. The court said his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred under several legal doctrines.
The court dismissed all the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ruled that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Judge Gonzalez-Rogers · No. 4:23-cv-01287
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants and sought relief concerning courts. The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner and has a pending federal petition in the same court with appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a prisoner with qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Alternative Grounds
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 does not separately analyze which cited doctrine applies to which complaint.
Recusal
The court rejected any suggestion that Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The court cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge. A footnote states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not provide a basis for recusal in the portion of the opinion provided.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.