Bonilla v. San Benito County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Chhabria: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases 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 terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future submissions in those cases without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal judges and federal and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other courts handled his cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if his requests to proceed without paying were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. San Benito County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05458
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding without a lawyer. The order covers the related cases listed in the caption. Bonilla presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges and federal and state courts as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, with appointed counsel.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla 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 order does not provide a separate explanation of how each cited decision applied to each case.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.