Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-00031
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also affected any pending motions and barred further documents in those closed cases from being filed.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights cases without a lawyer. The cases raised nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and state courts, seeking relief related to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without prepaying filing fees because he had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying those fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them. The court also declined to recuse itself, saying the repetitive and frivolous filings did not reasonably call the judge's impartiality into question.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:24-cv-00031
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Pro se” means that he was representing himself without a lawyer. The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner and has a pending federal petition challenging his custody in this court with appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and state courts. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.
Reasons for dismissal
The court held that Bonilla was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those bars.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton should recuse herself. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the judge's impartiality. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases but did not present a legitimate basis for recusal.
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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court noted Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases, including the number of cases assigned to the undersigned judge and the number filed before three other judges.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.