Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01729
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s 23 civil-rights cases with prejudice because he could not proceed without paying and his lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s 23 civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed 23 nearly identical lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He sued various federal and state judges and county officials, seeking relief related to his conviction and the handling of other court cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines, including rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and interference with other courts.
The court dismissed all 23 cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected the need for her recusal, noting the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not by itself create a reasonable question about her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:23-cv-01729
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed 23 civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers Case Nos. 23-cv-1282-PJH, 23-cv-1415-PJH, 23-cv-1416-PJH, 23-cv-1575-PJH, 23-cv-1576-PJH, 23-cv-1577-PJH, 23-cv-1579-PJH, 23-cv-1580-PJH, 23-cv-1581-PJH, 23-cv-1582-PJH, 23-cv-1625-PJH, 23-cv-1627-PJH, 23-cv-1667-PJH, 23-cv-1668-PJH, 23-cv-1669-PJH, 23-cv-1670-PJH, 23-cv-1671-PJH, 23-cv-1673-PJH, 23-cv-1728-PJH, 23-cv-1729-PJH, 23-cv-1730-PJH, 23-cv-1731-PJH, and 23-cv-1732-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and county officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court. The order also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
The court addressed Bonilla’s request, or possible request, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has previously accumulated qualifying dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without paying under that rule and that his allegations did not show the required danger.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred under several doctrines. It cited rules that can prevent civil-rights claims from being used to challenge a conviction, interfere with ongoing proceedings, or interfere with the actions of other courts. The court did not decide the underlying allegations in Bonilla’s complaints.
Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases. The court concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality and therefore did not require her recusal.
Ruling
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 the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Classification Note
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and other threshold legal doctrines without deciding whether Bonilla’s underlying claims were correct.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.