Bonilla v. Bender
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07648
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and concluding legal doctrines barred the lawsuits.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close them and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Bonilla v. Clay involved multiple civil-rights lawsuits filed without a lawyer by state prisoner Steven Wayne Bonilla. The complaints challenged his conviction and the handling of his related state and federal court cases.
The court found that Bonilla had previously been barred from filing without paying fees unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury, and that his allegations did not show such danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if fee-free filing were allowed.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, meaning the cases were closed on a final basis. Judge Hamilton also stated that the repetitive filings did not provide a reason for her impartiality to be questioned, directed the clerk to end pending motions and close the cases, and ordered later submissions returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Bender · No. 4:20-cv-07648
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented similar claims and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the district court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis—that is, from filing without paying the required fees—under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.
Other grounds cited
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees 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 does not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Ruling and case administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, meaning the dismissals were final. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.