Bonilla v. Gutierrez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07715
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Clay: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and his claims faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. He could not proceed without paying the filing fees, and the clerk was directed to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them. The defendants were not required to litigate the claims on the merits.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against state officials. The lawsuits concerned his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also ruled that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines. The cases were dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not require her to step aside. The clerk was ordered to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gutierrez · No. 4:20-cv-07715
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers. It says that Bonilla presented very similar claims in the cases and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal habeas petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee status
Bonilla sought, or might have sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred him from doing so unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. Relying on the allegations in the complaints, the court found that they did not show such imminent danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each doctrine's application to each case.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about Judge Hamilton's impartiality requiring her to step aside. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court disposed of the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and other legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.