Bonilla v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01582
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez, Judge Hamilton ruled Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed the civil-rights cases with prejudice.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 cases against the judges and county officials he named as defendants; the order also directed the clerk to close those cases and reject further filings in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal and state judges and county officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without them and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA · No. 4:23-cv-01582
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and county officials and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings. The court also noted that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case. The supplied opinion text does not complete the footnote describing that filing.
Filing-Fee Restriction
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court relied on two earlier proceedings involving Bonilla. It found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such an imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each doctrine applied to each complaint.
The court also addressed the issue of its own impartiality. It stated that these cases did not present a situation in which the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.