Bonilla v. Alameda County
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01276
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without filing fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to close those cases and return any further documents submitted in them without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges and court officials. He sought relief concerning courts.
The court ruled that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury, and his complaints did not show such danger when filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton found no basis requiring her to step aside because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. She ordered the clerk to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County · No. 4:23-cv-01276
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints were nearly identical 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 challenging his confinement in the same court, where he has appointed counsel, and that he is also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee ruling
The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Claims and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Recusal and case closure
The court also determined that the cases did not present a situation in which Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered 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.