Bonilla v. Horner
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03404
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Horner, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judges, municipalities, and other officials were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Horner, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges, municipalities, and other officials. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his court cases and petitions.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the lawsuits. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and court decisions.
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 future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Horner · No. 4:20-cv-03404
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 14, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order addresses these related case numbers: 20-cv-02982-PJH, 20-cv-02994-PJH, 20-cv-02998-PJH, 20-cv-03167-PJH, 20-cv-03351-PJH, 20-cv-03354-PJH, 20-cv-03396-PJH, 20-cv-03404-PJH, 20-cv-04314-PJH, 20-cv-04462-PJH, and 20-cv-04524-PJH.
Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials as defendants. The court stated that the complaints raised very similar claims concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented petitions and other cases. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that 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. Section 1915(g) is the rule that limits a prisoner’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees after qualifying prior dismissals.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and authorities: Heck v. Humphrey, concerning civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction or sentence; Younger v. Harris, concerning federal interference with certain ongoing proceedings; Demos v. U.S. District Court; and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court did not decide the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, stating that the order did not present a basis for recusal.
Disposition
The court dismissed the related 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.