Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of San Mateo
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01520
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. State of California, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger justified fee-free filing.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying the filing fee because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights cases against various federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies. His complaints raised similar issues involving his conviction and how state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from filing without paying the filing fee unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court concluded that his complaints did not show such danger. It also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and federal court decisions.
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. State of California, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of San Mateo · No. 4:21-cv-01520
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a 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 self-represented petitions and cases.
The court also noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. The court further stated that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Filing-fee restriction
Bonilla sought, or potentially sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without the fee may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee. It found that the allegations in these complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger at the time of filing. As a result, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents. These included rules limiting civil-rights lawsuits that would undermine a conviction, interfere with ongoing state proceedings, challenge federal court decisions, or otherwise seek relief unavailable through these cases. The opinion cited Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Ruling
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 Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on March 9, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.