Bonilla v. Duffy
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07702
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Clay, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed; the clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and return later documents without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Clarence Don Clay, et al., the court dismissed multiple civil-rights cases brought by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, against state officials. The cases involved similar claims about his conviction and the handling of his state and federal legal proceedings.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from filing without fees, and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and decisions cited by the court.
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. Duffy · No. 4:20-cv-07702
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion lists the lead case as No. 20-cv-07561-PJH and numerous related case numbers. Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The opinion states that his complaints presented very similar claims concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his various filings and cases by state and federal courts.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla's requests, to the extent he sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the required prior dismissals generally may not proceed without fees unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without fees under that provision and that his allegations did not show such an imminent danger at the time of filing.
Other grounds cited
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 opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited doctrine applied to which case.
Ruling
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 frivolous nature of the 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 the closed cases.
Disposition
The cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the order directed that the cases be closed. The ruling is classified as a procedural order because it disposed of the cases on filing-fee and threshold grounds 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.