Bonilla v. United States Attorney Northern District of California
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01627
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and the suits faced legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, affecting his claims against the federal and state judges and county officials he named as defendants. The clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and county officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees 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 were allowed to proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred under other legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. United States Attorney Northern District of California · No. 4:23-cv-01627
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints were filed in the listed related cases and presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various federal and state judges and county officials as defendants.
The opinion says that Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show that he faced such danger at the relevant time. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Additional Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited rule or decision applied to each case.
The opinion also addressed judicial impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a situation in which the undersigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned. A footnote notes that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one of the cases.
Ruling and Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to 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.