Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the named state courts and judges were no longer required to litigate those cases in the district court.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various state courts and judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines. It dismissed all the cases with prejudice, ended pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also denied Bonilla’s request that she step aside in one case. The clerk was instructed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:23-cv-05967
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The cases were assigned these case numbers: 23-cv-5457-PJH, 23-cv-5515-PJH, 23-cv-5658-PJH, 23-cv-5659-PJH, 23-cv-5853-PJH, 23-cv-5854-PJH, 23-cv-5855-PJH, 23-cv-5856-PJH, 23-cv-5899-PJH, 23-cv-5900-PJH, 23-cv-5901-PJH, 23-cv-5965-PJH, 23-cv-5966-PJH, 23-cv-5967-PJH, 23-cv-5969-PJH, 23-cv-6056-PJH, 23-cv-6057-PJH, and 23-cv-6058-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various state courts and judges. The court said Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required fees.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules 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 separately analyze each doctrine’s application to each case.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
In a footnote, the court addressed Bonilla’s request for Judge Hamilton’s recusal in case number 23-cv-5965-PJH. The court said the recusal arguments were meritless and denied the request, citing Bonilla’s numerous similar filings over many years. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.