Bonilla v. Gilbert
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07867
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Aronson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple listed civil-rights cases; the cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Aronson, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner without a lawyer in these cases, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. His complaints did not show that danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and decisions it cited.
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. Gilbert · No. 4:20-cv-07867
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other self-represented petitions and cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The order applies to the multiple cases listed in the caption, including Case Nos. 20-cv-07866-PJH, 20-cv-07867-PJH, 20-cv-07868-PJH, 20-cv-07963-PJH, 20-cv-07964-PJH, 20-cv-07965-PJH, 20-cv-07966-PJH, 20-cv-07968-PJH, 20-cv-07971-PJH, 20-cv-08002-PJH, 20-cv-08004-PJH, 20-cv-08005-PJH, 20-cv-08006-PJH, 20-cv-08007-PJH, 20-cv-08008-PJH, 20-cv-08024-PJH, 20-cv-08025-PJH, 20-cv-08026-PJH, 20-cv-08220-PJH, 20-cv-08221-PJH, 20-cv-08222-PJH, 20-cv-08223-PJH, 20-cv-08224-PJH, and 20-cv-08225-PJH.
Reasons for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla's ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only if the complaint shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court determined that Bonilla's allegations did not show such imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents cited in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the truth of Bonilla's underlying challenges to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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.