Bonilla v. Bamattre-Manoukian
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07649
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Clay: Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases against state officials were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close those cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Clay, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights cases without a lawyer against state officials. His claims concerned his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his petitions and other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical harm. The court found that his complaints did not show such a risk and said the cases would also be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future filings in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Bamattre-Manoukian · No. 4:20-cv-07649
- 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 the cases as including Case Nos. 20-cv-07561-PJH, 20-cv-07644-PJH, 20-cv-07646-PJH through 20-cv-07713-PJH, and 20-cv-07715-PJH through 20-cv-07717-PJH, along with the other case numbers shown in the caption. The opinion states that Bonilla presented very similar claims in all of the cases.
The complaints sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction and to the handling of his various filings in state and federal courts. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status and legal barriers
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee after qualifying prior cases, unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under that provision.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees. The court further stated that, even if such permission 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 assign each cited legal rule to a particular case or claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings, stating that there were no legitimate grounds for recusal. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.