Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-03358
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple cases covered by the order. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal court cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The allegations did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-03358
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 12, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees 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 danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions cited in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court also rejected the suggestion that the presiding judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings.
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 order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Scope and uncertainty
The opinion caption lists multiple case numbers and identifies the defendants as “U.S. DISTRICT COURT et. al.” The supplied case name identifies the matter as Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court; the opinion text itself does not separately mention Lake County Superior Court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.