Bonilla v. White
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04314
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. White, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the defendants named in those cases.
What happened
Bonilla v. White involved multiple civil-rights complaints by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner. He sued federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other officials over his conviction and the handling of his court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required filing fees because he had been barred from proceeding without payment unless he showed an immediate serious physical danger. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. White · No. 4:20-cv-04314
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 14, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases.
The opinion also stated that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, in which he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without payment after qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court concluded that the allegations did not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger at the time he filed the complaints. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the required fees.
Other Legal Bars and Disposition
The court further stated that, even if permission to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles 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 separately explain how each cited principle applied to each case.
The court also stated that these were not cases in which the presiding judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk 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.