Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and concluding the claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the named court-related defendants were not required to litigate the claims.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and court officials. He sought relief concerning courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required filing fee because he had been disqualified from proceeding without fees under the prison-litigation statute, and his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if his request to proceed without fees were granted.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-01278
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning courts. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only if he shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not make that showing. He therefore could not proceed without the filing fee.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if it granted Bonilla’s applications to proceed without the filing fee, 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 does not separately identify which rule applies to which case or claim.
Recusal
The court rejected any suggestion that the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not present a basis for recusal.
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 the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.