Bonilla v. Harrell
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07716
- 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 filing-fee waivers and his claims faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple pro se civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close them and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against state officials. The cases raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his state and federal petitions and other cases.
Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such a danger when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, legal rules would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, meaning the order used that stated form of dismissal. The clerk was directed 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. Harrell · No. 4:20-cv-07716
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 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 used to sue state officials for certain rights violations. The order covers the listed cases, including Case Nos. 20-cv-07561-PJH, 20-cv-07644-PJH, 20-cv-07646-PJH, 20-cv-07647-PJH, 20-cv-07648-PJH, 20-cv-07649-PJH, 20-cv-07650-PJH, 20-cv-07651-PJH, and 20-cv-07701-PJH through 20-cv-07716-PJH, with the case numbers listed in the caption.
The court stated that Bonilla presented very similar claims in all of the cases. The claims sought relief concerning his 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 with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. This restriction is commonly called the “three-strikes” rule. The court found that the allegations did not show that Bonilla faced such danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Legal Bars
The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under legal doctrines and rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s claims.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court additionally concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality or requiring recusal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.