Bonilla v. Freeman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-03010
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close them and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases without a lawyer against state courts and federal judges. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had already been 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 that, even if permission to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred by legal rules and prior decisions it cited.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Freeman · No. 4:24-cv-03010
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 29, 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, a federal law that allows certain claims against state actors. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various state courts and federal judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Barriers to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the principles or decisions identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain the application of each cited authority to each case.
Ruling and Case Closure
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings, stating that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases. The opinion notes that Hamilton was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla's cases and that this was the 63rd such case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.