Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01577
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Ortez: Judge Hamilton dismisses multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were various federal and state judges and county officials. The clerk was ordered to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Elia Ortez et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and county officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of 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 an immediate risk of serious physical harm. The complaints did not show that risk. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for additional legal reasons, even if his fee applications were granted.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers · No. 4:23-cv-01577
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes him as a state prisoner who is under a death sentence. He had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges and county officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal cases had been handled.
Fee status and legal barriers
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without fees only when the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these allegations did not show such imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines identified in the opinion, including doctrines concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, and limits on federal-court review of other courts’ actions. The opinion did not separately analyze the merits of each complaint.
Recusal issue and disposition
The court also rejected the apparent basis for questioning the presiding judge’s impartiality based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. A footnote states that Bonilla named the presiding judge as a defendant in one case but presented no legitimate reason for recusal.
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 the closed cases.
Classification rationale
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold or court-review barriers, rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.