Bonilla v. Goodfellow
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01576
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the named federal and state judges and county officials by ending the cases against them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from filing without payment, and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, several legal doctrines would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to close them and terminate pending motions, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Goodfellow · No. 4:23-cv-01576
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. The opinion also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and county officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
Filing-fee restriction and legal bars
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately analyze each doctrine's application to each complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the assigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case but presented no legitimate basis for recusal.
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.