Bonilla v. Inspector John Whitson
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01575
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Ortez: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying independent legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and return later submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez et al., 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 or the handling of his other court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Inspector John Whitson · No. 4:23-cv-01575
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that permits certain claims for violations of constitutional or federal rights by state actors. The opinion lists the cases under multiple docket numbers, including 23-cv-1282-PJH, 23-cv-1415-PJH, 23-cv-1416-PJH, and others.
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 handling of his other cases in state and federal courts. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court addressed whether Bonilla could proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding in that manner unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the complaints.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger when the complaints were filed. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Independent Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 explanation of how each cited decision applied.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered 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 United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on April 14, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.