Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05520
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying fees and the lawsuits faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the 24 listed cases. The order ended those cases with prejudice, terminated their pending motions, closed the cases, and barred further submissions from being filed in them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Vince Chhabria et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal judges and federal and state courts. He challenged his conviction and how other cases had been handled.
Bonilla sought permission to litigate without prepaying court fees. The court said he was barred from doing so unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed, and his complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the lawsuits would be legally barred for other reasons.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself based on the repetitive and frivolous filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05520
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges and federal and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction, with appointed counsel.
Permission to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees
The court addressed Bonilla’s effort to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to litigate without prepaying court fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without prepaying fees only if he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified and that these complaints did not show such an imminent danger. Therefore, he could not proceed without prepaying fees.
Additional Legal Bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those doctrines.
Recusal and Disposition
The court rejected the suggestion that the presiding judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases. The clerk was also ordered 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.