Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2023

Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:23-cv-01283
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.

Who this affects

Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, preventing him from refiling those same cases. The order also bars further filings in the closed cases from being filed by directing the clerk to return them.

What happened

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under a federal law known as Section 1983. He named various federal and state judges and court officials and sought relief concerning courts.

The court said Bonilla was disqualified from filing without paying fees unless he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury, and his complaints did not show such a risk when filed. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without fees, his lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules.

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-01283
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Mar. 27, 2023

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims, named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants, and sought relief regarding courts. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition in another case with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status

Bonilla sought, or potentially sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court held that he was disqualified from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other procedural barriers

The court further stated that, even if a filing-fee application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several doctrines and statutes. These included a rule limiting civil-rights claims that would undermine an existing conviction, a rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings, and rules concerning challenges to court proceedings and judicial actions. The court did not decide the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. The court also addressed recusal, concluding that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.