Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05515
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed 18 civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s 18 nearly identical civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected his ability to proceed without paying filing fees in those cases, terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and denied his request for Judge Hamilton’s recusal in one case.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed 18 nearly identical civil-rights cases under a federal law allowing suits against state officials. He named various state courts and judges and sought relief concerning his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from fee-free filing and his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if fee-free filing were allowed, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all 18 cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future filings in them without filing them. She also denied Bonilla’s request that she recuse herself in one case.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05515
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the order as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various state courts and judges and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases. The order also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee determination
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other barriers and disposition
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited rule applied to which case. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Recusal request
A footnote states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, No. 23-cv-5965-PJH, and sought her recusal. Judge Hamilton said the recusal arguments were meritless and denied the request in light of 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.