Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05965
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying filing restrictions.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and his multiple § 1983 cases against the named state courts and judges; the order also directed the clerk regarding future filings in those closed cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court et al., Bonilla filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against state courts and judges. He sought relief connected to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because earlier rulings disqualified him from that filing-fee waiver unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found no such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and limits on lawsuits against courts.
The court dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also denied Bonilla’s request that she step aside from one case, finding his reasons meritless.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:23-cv-05965
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against state actors. He named various state courts and judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee waiver and asserted barriers
The court stated 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 imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if a filing-fee waiver were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules and precedents concerning civil-rights challenges to convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and suits against federal courts. The opinion cited Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court did not decide whether Bonilla’s underlying civil-rights allegations were legally correct.
Recusal request and disposition
In a footnote, the court addressed Bonilla’s request that the undersigned judge recuse herself in one of the cases, where he named her as a defendant. The court denied that request, stating that his arguments were meritless and that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk 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 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.