Bonilla v. Montenegro
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07646
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also ended the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clay, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against state officials. The cases raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other petitions and lawsuits.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by rules that prevent civil-rights claims from interfering with convictions, ongoing proceedings, or matters already addressed by other courts.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in them without filing them. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about its impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Montenegro · No. 4:20-cv-07646
- 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 caption lists Clarence Don Clay and other defendants. The complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his various petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several authorities. These included Heck v. Humphrey, which generally limits civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, which limits federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and other authorities concerning challenges to federal court proceedings. The opinion did not separately analyze each complaint or claim under these authorities.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality.
Disposition
The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on November 9, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.