Bonilla v. Ortez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01579
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. State of California: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also directed the clerk to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. State of California, et al., a condemned state prisoner filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other habeas petitions and court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal doctrines.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to return later filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortez · No. 4:21-cv-01579
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It further ruled that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk 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.