Bonilla v. Eller
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07705
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without filing fees and his lawsuits were otherwise barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future submissions in those cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits about his conviction and the handling of his state and federal cases.
The court held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without them and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Eller · No. 4:20-cv-07705
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were filed without a lawyer. The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his confinement and with counsel in state-court proceedings. The complaints presented similar claims concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.
Filing-fee status
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under the prisoner-litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only when the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of which cited doctrine applied to which complaint.
Disposition
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 allegedly frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to 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.