Bonilla v. Hill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07783
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Hill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not show imminent danger and the lawsuits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed cases, including various state courts and state officials. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases against various state courts and state officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without the filing-fee waiver because he had previously been disqualified from using that procedure and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if the fee waiver were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hill · No. 4:20-cv-07783
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the related cases numbered 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.
Bonilla named various state courts and state officials as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or 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 court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee-waiver issue
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 under that fee-waiver procedure after certain prior cases, unless the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified under that statute and that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. The court therefore stated that he could not proceed under the fee-waiver procedure.
Other barriers and disposition
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 court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
The court also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. 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.