Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01579
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Ortez: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. He could not proceed without paying filing fees because the court found no imminent danger, and future documents in those closed cases would be returned without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and county officials. He challenged his conviction and how other cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla could not file without paying fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, several legal rules barred the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office · No. 4:23-cv-01579
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were filed in the related case numbers listed in the opinion. They raised nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and county officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
Rulings
The court addressed Bonilla's request, to the extent he sought to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has previously had three or more qualifying cases dismissed generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint is filed. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing and held that he could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and authorities, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, challenges to federal-court decisions, and challenges to bankruptcy-court decisions. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not present a basis for recusal.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The opinion does not separately state a different disposition for any individual case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.