Bonilla v. Humboldt County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-03687
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judges were defendants in those lawsuits.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he was barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury, and his complaints did not make that showing. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if his fee applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Humboldt County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-03687
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Filing-fee restriction
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate merits determination of Bonilla's underlying conviction-related claims.
The court also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the judge handling these cases as a defendant in one of them. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the judge's impartiality.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed 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 July 28, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.