Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-01490
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Lloyd: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. All pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and future documents submitted in those closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Howard Lloyd et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute. He named federal and state judges and sought relief related to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he was barred from proceeding without payment unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that risk. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if he could proceed without paying.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future documents submitted in them without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any suggestion that she needed to step aside because of the repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:24-cv-01490
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described in the order as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The order also states that he had a pending federal habeas matter and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner disqualified by prior qualifying filings may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such imminent danger. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's request to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 opinion does not separately explain which cited barrier applies to which individual case or claim.
Recusal issue
The court also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in three of the cases. It concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. The order noted that the judge had a duty to sit absent legitimate grounds 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 further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.