Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Monterey
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-06341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed the multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Monterey, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits under a federal law that allows claims against state officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other court cases and petitions.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had not shown that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and earlier decisions.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, meaning the dismissals barred refiling these same cases. The clerk was ordered to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Monterey · No. 4:20-cv-06341
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for claims against state actors. The order addresses the case numbers listed in the caption. Bonilla is described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner. The complaints named various state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases in state and federal court.
The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. Those related proceedings were not the matters decided by this order.
Filing-fee status and legal barriers
The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction has an exception when the prisoner shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not analyze the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality, and it cited the general duty to decide assigned cases absent a legitimate reason for recusal.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any additional 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.