Bonilla v. Ervine
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07971
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Aronson, Judge Hamilton dismissed the multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and procedural bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also ended the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later documents without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Brian Ross Aronson, et al., the plaintiff filed multiple similar civil-rights cases without a lawyer. His complaints sought relief related to his conviction and to how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also stated that the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines even if his fee applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and ordered the cases closed. The clerk was also directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ervine · No. 4:20-cv-07971
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple similar complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal courts.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in related state proceedings. It also states that he had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally prevents a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without fees unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed.
Court's analysis
The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show imminent danger at the time he filed the complaints. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application 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 separately analyze which specific bar applied to each individual case or claim.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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.
Case numbers
The order lists these related case numbers: 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.