Bonilla v. Meza
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07703
- 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 identifying legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also terminated pending motions and closed those cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, et. al., the court addressed multiple civil-rights lawsuits filed by Bonilla, a state prisoner, without a lawyer. The cases presented similar challenges concerning his conviction and the handling of his state and federal petitions and other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that danger when they were filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if fee waivers were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Meza · No. 4:20-cv-07703
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order lists numerous related case numbers, including 20-cv-07561-PJH and 20-cv-07644-PJH through 20-cv-07716-PJH, with some numbers omitted from that range. The complaints raised very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se petitions for relief and other cases by state and federal courts.
The order also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning such relief. The court did not describe the specific allegations in each complaint separately.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla’s requests, or possible requests, to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only by showing that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under that statute and that these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. The court therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the fees.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without 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 order did not analyze each complaint or identify which specific bar applied to which case.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected recusal based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings, stating that there was no basis to reasonably 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.
Disposition
The order’s stated disposition is dismissal of the listed cases with prejudice. It does not separately state a disposition for each pending motion beyond directing the clerk to terminate them.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.