Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-06555
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the state prisoner who filed the cases, was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees, and the cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants named in the complaints were not required to litigate the claims because the cases were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and state courts. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court found that Bonilla did not show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fees. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines even if his requests to proceed without paying were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Del Norte Superior Court · No. 4:23-cv-06555
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption, including 23-cv-6555-PJH and numerous cases beginning with 24-cv. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same district with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning such a petition. The opinion also notes that he had an extensive history of filing similar cases.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court stated that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines or authorities identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide separate claim-by-claim analysis for each case in the text supplied.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The order additionally addressed impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.