Bonilla v. Volkman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-01062
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Linda Clark, et al.: Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in the related cases, including Linda Clark. The cases were closed, pending motions were terminated, and further documents submitted in those closed cases were ordered returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against Linda Clark and others. The opinion states that he also has pending federal and state habeas proceedings with lawyers.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been disqualified from filing without fees unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also stated that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines and cases.
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 any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:25-cv-01062
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named Linda Clark and others as defendants. The opinion also states that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment, with appointed counsel, and state-court habeas proceedings in which he is represented by counsel.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla’s requests, or possible requests, to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified because of prior qualifying cases generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified and that the allegations in these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. The court therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines and decisions identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.
Ruling and disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those 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.