Bonilla v. Wilken
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03657
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Wilken, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and citing additional legal bars to Bonilla’s claims.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the federal and state judges, municipalities, and other state and county officials he named as defendants.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Wilken, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed several self-represented civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges, municipalities, and other officials. He also asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court said Bonilla had already been barred from proceeding without fees under a rule limiting repeat prisoner lawsuits, and his complaints did not show that he faced immediate danger when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be blocked by other legal rules concerning challenges to convictions and court proceedings.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted after closure without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Wilken · No. 4:20-cv-03657
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 11, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). The order covers these case numbers: 20-cv-02986-PJH, 20-cv-02987-PJH, 20-cv-02993-PJH, 20-cv-02996-PJH, 20-cv-03009-PJH, 20-cv-03011-PJH, 20-cv-03012-PJH, 20-cv-03561-PJH, 20-cv-03655-PJH, 20-cv-03657-PJH, and 20-cv-03658-PJH.
The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other state and county officials. The court stated that Bonilla presented very similar claims in the cases and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions in state and federal courts. The order also noted that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It found that the allegations did not show he was in imminent danger—the immediate danger exception required for a prisoner otherwise barred from proceeding IFP—when he filed the complaints. Therefore, he could not proceed IFP.
The court further stated that, even if an IFP application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the order, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and claims against federal courts or judges. The opinion did not decide the underlying allegations in Bonilla’s complaints.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted after the cases were closed. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on June 11, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.