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, finding no imminent danger and identifying several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple complaints were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return later submissions in those cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints against various federal and state judges. The complaints sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the 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 paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and decisions. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned because of the filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing those documents.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Court Clerk · No. 4:23-cv-03589
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court said he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a prisoner with the relevant filing history to proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited decision applied. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Impartiality and Case Closure
The order stated that these were not cases in which Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion also notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case, although the excerpt does not provide the remainder of the related footnote.
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.