Bonilla v. Villarreal
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01356
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying filing bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also directed the clerk to close them and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple self-represented civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges and court officials, seeking relief involving courts. The opinion says he is a state prisoner and has lawyers representing him in separate federal and state proceedings.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and cases. It therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also said the repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question her impartiality. The clerk was ordered to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Villarreal · No. 4:23-cv-01356
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants. The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition in this court for review of his detention and a separate state-court proceeding, both involving appointed or retained counsel.
The order applies to the case numbers listed in the caption, including 23-cv-0851-PJH and the related cases listed there.
Filing-fee status
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and authorities identified in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
Ruling and case status
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. 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.
Judge
The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.