Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05391
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Chhabria et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple listed civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also affects any further documents he submits in those closed cases, which the clerk must return without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Vince Chhabria et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines and prior decisions.
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 the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05391
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges and federal and state courts as defendants. The court said the complaints presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition in the same court with appointed counsel.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.
Other stated bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying 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 separately explain which cited bar applied to which complaint.
Ruling and case administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. A footnote states that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case but presented no stated basis for recusal in the excerpt provided.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.