Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01730
- 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 additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also prevents him from proceeding without paying filing fees unless the statutory imminent-danger exception applies and directs the clerk to return further documents submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and county officials. He sought relief connected to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if he could proceed without paying, and dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to close the cases and return future filings in them without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any concern that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because Bonilla named her as a defendant in one case, noting that he provided no legitimate reason for her recusal.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-01730
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and county officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not separately explain how each cited authority applied to each case.
Recusal issue and disposition
Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases but, according to the order, offered no legitimate reason for her to step aside. Judge Hamilton concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about her impartiality. The cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.