Bonilla v. Volkmann
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-08222
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Volkmann, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple self-filed civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close them and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Volkmann, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on December 1, 2020. The clerk was directed to return any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkmann · No. 4:20-cv-08222
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers and says the complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed state and federal petitions and other cases. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee, unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, which can bar civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, concerning limits on federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and Demos v. U.S. District Court and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited rule applied.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.