Bonilla v. Court Clerk
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-03589
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because fee-waiver restrictions and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's sixteen related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close them and return later filings without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges, challenging his conviction or how other courts handled his cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because federal law disqualified him from that status unless he faced immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger.
The court also said the lawsuits were barred for other legal reasons and dismissed all the cases with prejudice. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to end pending motions, close the cases, and return future filings in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Court Clerk · No. 4:23-cv-03589
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute commonly used to seek relief for alleged civil-rights violations by government officials. The cases named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla's complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases were handled by state and federal courts.
The listed case numbers were 23-cv-3304-PJH, 23-cv-3446-PJH, 23-cv-3447-PJH, 23-cv-3589-PJH, 23-cv-3590-PJH, 23-cv-3591-PJH, 23-cv-3592-PJH, 23-cv-3593-PJH, 23-cv-3686-PJH, 23-cv-3687-PJH, 23-cv-3688-PJH, 23-cv-3690-PJH, 23-cv-3691-PJH, 23-cv-3693-PJH, 23-cv-3694-PJH, and 23-cv-3695-PJH.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees after qualifying prior filings, unless the prisoner shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified under this provision and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's fee-waiver applications 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 separately explain which bar applied to which case or claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge's impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on July 28, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.