Bonilla v. Freeman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01576
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. State of California, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because IFP rules and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he was not allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The defendants named in those cases were federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies.
What happened
In Bonilla v. State of California, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases named federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies as defendants and raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been disqualified from that status and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on March 9, 2021.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Freeman · No. 4:21-cv-01576
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The listed cases included 21-cv-01345-PJH, 21-cv-01346-PJH, 21-cv-01452-PJH, 21-cv-01489-PJH, 21-cv-01490-PJH, 21-cv-01491-PJH, 21-cv-01520-PJH, 21-cv-01521-PJH, 21-cv-01522-PJH, 21-cv-01523-PJH, 21-cv-01576-PJH, 21-cv-01577-PJH, 21-cv-01578-PJH, 21-cv-01579-PJH, 21-cv-01580-PJH, and 21-cv-01581-PJH. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies. The court said the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.
Ruling
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not make that showing, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
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 legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.
The court dismissed the cases 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. 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.