Bonilla v. Horner
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-08327
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Horner, Judge Hamilton dismissed two civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and faced no imminent danger.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s two civil-rights cases 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
Bonilla v. Horner involved two complaints by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, against state-court judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases and habeas petitions.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from proceeding without fees and had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also cited additional legal barriers and dismissed both cases with prejudice, closed them, and directed the clerk to return future filings without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on December 1, 2020. The opinion text provided does not include the full explanation following the sentence beginning “even if an,” so the additional grounds for dismissal cannot be stated more specifically.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Horner · No. 4:20-cv-08327
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed two similar civil-rights complaints representing himself under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named various state-court judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases. The order also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court explained 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 imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional grounds and disposition
The provided opinion text is incomplete after the sentence, “Moreover, even if an.” The remaining visible text cites additional authorities, including decisions concerning challenges to convictions, abstention from certain ongoing proceedings, and limits on federal-court review. The court then states: “Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with prejudice.” It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Effect
The order ended both cases and barred refiling them as dismissed. Because the ruling turned on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold barriers rather than deciding the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or court proceedings, it is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.