Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-01486
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Howard Lloyd, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the defendants named in the multiple cases, and future filings in those closed cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Howard Lloyd et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal and state judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of other court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had been disqualified from that status and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if that status were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:24-cv-01486
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order lists multiple related case numbers, including 24-cv-1206-PJH, 24-cv-1211-PJH, 24-cv-1486-PJH, 24-cv-1488-PJH, 24-cv-1490-PJH, 24-cv-1491-PJH, 24-cv-1492-PJH, 24-cv-1493-PJH, 24-cv-1494-PJH, 24-cv-1536-PJH, 24-cv-1565-PJH, 24-cv-1566-PJH, 24-cv-1567-PJH, 24-cv-1568-PJH, 24-cv-1569-PJH, 24-cv-1570-PJH, 24-cv-1571-PJH, 24-cv-1572-PJH, 24-cv-1574-PJH, 24-cv-1575-PJH, 24-cv-1689-PJH, 24-cv-1690-PJH, 24-cv-1709-PJH, 24-cv-1710-PJH, 24-cv-1711-PJH, and 24-cv-1854-PJH.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee, 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.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 order does not separately explain which bar applies to which claim or case.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on March 27, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.