Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-06295
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in those closed cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases and petitions by state and federal courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers · No. 4:20-cv-06295
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers case numbers 20-cv-06002-PJH, 20-cv-06003-PJH, 20-cv-06114-PJH, 20-cv-06293-PJH, 20-cv-06294-PJH, 20-cv-06295-PJH, 20-cv-06296-PJH, 20-cv-06329-PJH, 20-cv-06330-PJH, 20-cv-06338-PJH, 20-cv-06339-PJH, 20-cv-06341-PJH, 20-cv-06342-PJH, 20-cv-06366-PJH, 20-cv-06367-PJH, 20-cv-06369-PJH, 20-cv-06370-PJH, 20-cv-06394-PJH, 20-cv-06395-PJH, 20-cv-06396-PJH, 20-cv-06397-PJH, and 20-cv-06461-PJH.
The complaints concerned Bonilla's underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his other petitions and cases. The order states that he is a condemned prisoner and has a separate federal petition challenging his custody, in which he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Inability to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying the filing fees.
Other Legal Bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order also found that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and 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.