Bonilla v. Freeman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01331
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple lawsuits with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and additional legal barriers to proceeding without fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases, pending motions, and future filings in those closed cases were affected; the named federal and state judges and court officials were the defendants.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Freeman, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and court officials. He sought relief concerning courts.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because a statutory restriction applied to him and his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and prior decisions.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Freeman · No. 4:23-cv-01331
- 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. The opinion identifies the following case numbers: 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 opinion also states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition concerning his custody, in which he has appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasoning
Bonilla sought, or might have sought, permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the complaints did not make that showing.
The court further stated that, even if permission to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but presented no legitimate reason for recusal.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on March 27, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.