Bonilla v. Clark
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09022
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Clark, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s related civil-rights cases, the defendants named in those cases, and any pending motions or later filings in the closed cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clark, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer. He named various federal and state judges and other officials, and sought relief concerning his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been barred from proceeding without payment unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clark · No. 4:24-cv-09022
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 16, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner who has a pending federal petition challenging his detention, with appointed counsel, and is also represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning that petition.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims in Bonilla’s favor or in the defendants’ favor.
Ruling
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.
The opinion additionally rejected the suggestion that the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. 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.