Bonilla v. First Appellate District Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-03686
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also ended pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal and state judges. He sought relief involving his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to end 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.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. First Appellate District Court · No. 4:23-cv-03686
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 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 without a lawyer. 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 his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that challenge.
Filing-Fee Ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction allows such a prisoner to proceed without paying only if he shows that 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 relevant time. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional Legal Bars
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 Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately analyze each of those legal rules.
Disposition and Judicial-Impartiality Discussion
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases but, according to the visible portion of the footnote, presented no stated basis for questioning her impartiality.
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.