Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01071
- 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 fees and the claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s listed cases were dismissed with prejudice. His pending motions in those cases were terminated, the cases were closed, and future documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints against various federal and state judges and court officials. He sought relief concerning courts and was representing himself in these cases, while having appointed or other counsel in separate habeas proceedings.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from filing without paying fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if his fee-waiver applications were granted.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. It also directed the clerk to return future documents in those cases without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton further declined to recuse herself based on the repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:23-cv-01071
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whom the order identifies as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints were filed in the listed related cases and presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and court officials. The order says Bonilla sought relief concerning courts.
The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state court proceedings. Those separate proceedings were not the matters decided by this order.
Filing-fee restriction
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court stated that he had been disqualified from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule permits such a prisoner to proceed without prepaying fees only if he was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show that danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying fees.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application 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 order did not separately analyze each complaint or explain which cited rule applied to which claim.
Ruling and case administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases. The court stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the judge’s impartiality and declined to recuse herself. Judge Hamilton signed the order on March 27, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.