Bonilla v. Judge Clark
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01355
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named federal and state judges and court officials were defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal and state judges and court officials. He sought relief involving courts.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question her impartiality. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Judge Clark · No. 4:23-cv-01355
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The opinion describes him as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody and with a lawyer representing him in state-court proceedings. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and court officials and sought relief concerning courts.
Filing-fee status
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That law allows a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified 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 explain which doctrine applies to which complaint. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Recusal and case closure
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a situation in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
The clerk was ordered 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.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all of the listed cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing them.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.