Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01286
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office; Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and additional legal barriers to the lawsuits.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple federal civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions in them without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute. He sued various federal and state judges and court officials and sought relief involving courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and prior decisions. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:23-cv-01286
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The listed cases were Nos. 23-cv-0851-PJH, 23-cv-1071-PJH, 23-cv-1236-PJH, 23-cv-1275-PJH, 23-cv-1276-PJH, 23-cv-1278-PJH, 23-cv-1279-PJH, 23-cv-1280-PJH, 23-cv-1283-PJH, 23-cv-1284-PJH, 23-cv-1285-PJH, 23-cv-1286-PJH, 23-cv-1287-PJH, 23-cv-1331-PJH, 23-cv-1333-PJH, 23-cv-1355-PJH, and 23-cv-1356-PJH.
Bonilla named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants and sought relief concerning courts. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement in the same district court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his confinement.
Reason for dismissal
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying dismissals from proceeding without prepaying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules and precedents identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate merits analysis of the underlying claims.
Ruling and case administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 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.
The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on March 27, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.