Bonilla v. Wilken
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00848
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Jackson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying the filing fees because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Teri L. Jackson, et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed several similar civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state court judges. He challenged his conviction and how courts handled his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions and interference with ongoing proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Wilken · No. 4:21-cv-00848
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The cases named various federal and state court judges as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases.
The order covered case numbers 21-cv-00821-PJH, 21-cv-00823-PJH, 21-cv-00824-PJH, 21-cv-00825-PJH, 21-cv-00846-PJH, 21-cv-00847-PJH, 21-cv-00848-PJH, 21-cv-00849-PJH, and 21-cv-00908-PJH.
Filing-fee ruling
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only by showing that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other stated grounds
The court additionally 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 order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those authorities.
The court also stated that the cases were not ones in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge
The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.