Bonilla v. Sonoma County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-05659
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after ruling Bonilla could not proceed in forma pauperis and identifying legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he was not allowed to proceed without paying the required filing fees. The state courts and judges he named as defendants were affected by the closure of the cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Monterey County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases against state courts and judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the required filing fees because his complaints did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to end all pending motions and close the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also denied Bonilla’s request for her recusal in one case, finding his arguments meritless in light of his numerous similar filings. The order was entered on November 27, 2023.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Sonoma County Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-05659
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases involved nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various state courts and judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same district with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning a similar type of petition.
Rulings on proceeding without paying filing fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the required filing fees under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the required filing fees.
Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were 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 court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Because the dismissals rested on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold legal bars rather than a decision on the underlying civil-rights claims, this order is classified as a procedural order.
Recusal request
A footnote states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, Case No. 23-cv-5965-PJH, and requested her recusal. Judge Hamilton described the arguments for recusal as meritless and denied the request in light of Bonilla’s numerous similar filings over many years.
Disposition
The court dismissed the multiple cases with prejudice, denied the recusal request described in the footnote, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.