Bonilla v. Del Norte County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05853
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after ruling Bonilla could not proceed without fees and denying recusal.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants—various state courts and judges—in the multiple cases covered by the order.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases under Section 1983 against various state courts and judges. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines identified in the order.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, denied Bonilla’s request for her recusal, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Del Norte County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05853
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various state courts and judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally prevents a prisoner with qualifying prior cases from proceeding without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such imminent danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not specify which cited doctrine applies to each individual case or claim.
Recusal request
A footnote explains that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case, No. 23-cv-5965-PJH, and requested her recusal. The court denied that request, finding his arguments meritless in light of his numerous similar filings over many years. The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.