Bonilla v. Volkman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01333
- 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 paying filing fees and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and required the clerk to return without filing any additional documents submitted in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a 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 and also had pending federal and state requests for review of his conviction or detention.
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that his allegations did not show such a risk. It also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in these closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:23-cv-01333
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning courts.
The order covers these cases: 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.
The order also notes that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition for review of his detention in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning the same subject.
Filing-fee status
Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was facing an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show that he faced such a risk at the time of filing. Accordingly, he could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain how each cited authority applied to each complaint.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. A footnote states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case but presented no basis for recusal.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Because the order dismissed the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims, this is a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.