Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05350
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice, finding Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were legally barred.
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 not to file further documents submitted in those closed cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Vince Chhabria et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits under a federal civil-rights law. 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 previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The allegations did not show that danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05350
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights. The cases had nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various federal judges and federal and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. The opinion also states that he is a condemned prisoner and has a pending federal petition concerning his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court determined that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Legal Bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain how each cited rule applied to each individual case.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question 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 the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.