Bonilla v. Volkman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-02998
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Volkman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also terminated pending motions and closed the cases.
What happened
Bonilla v. Volkman involved multiple complaints by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner who represented himself. The complaints sued various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other officials, and sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice and ordered the clerk to close them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned, terminated the pending motions, and directed the clerk to return further filings in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:20-cv-02998
- 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 lists multiple related case numbers, including 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. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials. The court described the claims as similar and said they sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status and other legal barriers
The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze which specific bar applied to which case or claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that there was no basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on July 14, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.