Bonilla v. Romero
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07830
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Hill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the various state courts and state officials he named as defendants by closing those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Hill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against various state courts and officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his state and federal court cases.
Bonilla had been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Romero · No. 4:20-cv-07830
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The order addresses the following related case numbers: 20-cv-07783-PJH, 20-cv-07784-PJH, 20-cv-07785-PJH, 20-cv-07786-PJH, 20-cv-07788-PJH, 20-cv-07789-PJH, 20-cv-07790-PJH, 20-cv-07827-PJH, 20-cv-07829-PJH, 20-cv-07830-PJH, 20-cv-07831-PJH, and 20-cv-07832-PJH.
The complaints named various state courts and state officials as defendants. The court stated that the complaints presented very similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way his pro se habeas petitions and other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without the fee after qualifying prior cases unless the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show that he faced such danger at filing, so he could not proceed without paying the fee.
Other barriers
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.
Recusal and disposition
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The cases were dismissed 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.