Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05517
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Vince Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Vince Chhabria et al., a state prisoner filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges and federal and state courts over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla had already been barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and precedents.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05517
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges and federal and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The court also noted that he had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel.
Filing-Fee Bar
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision allows a person subject to that restriction to proceed without paying only when the complaint shows that the person faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such a 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 did not separately identify which cited bar applied to which case or claim.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the cases dismissed with prejudice. The court also rejected any basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to 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.