Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-03357
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. U.S. District Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent-danger exception and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple cases covered by the order; the named federal and state judicial defendants were also affected by the dismissals.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal and state judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other state and federal court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without those fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and precedents. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on July 12, 2023. The order also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases, including one naming the judge as a defendant.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-03357
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 12, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The order also states that he is a condemned prisoner, has a pending federal habeas case, and is represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the 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 order does not separately explain which particular bar applied to each case or claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. 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.