Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Vince Chhabria et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named federal judges and federal and state courts were defendants in those cases, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal judges and federal and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules, including rules concerning challenges to convictions and interference with ongoing proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05278
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 30, 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 presented nearly identical claims against various federal judges and federal and state courts. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, with appointed counsel.
Filing-fee restriction
Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a prisoner with the relevant filing history to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application 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 explain which cited bar applies to which case or claim.
Disposition
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 filings, noting that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but, according to the footnote, presented no legitimate basis for recusal. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.