Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2021

Bonilla v. Carter

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:21-cv-01452
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bonilla v. State of California, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal barriers.

Who this affects

Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed without paying the filing fee because the court found no imminent danger. The named defendants included various federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies.

What happened

In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. State of California, et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies. His complaints raised similar challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other cases and petitions.

The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found no such danger in his allegations. It also stated that the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines even if his fee-waiver applications were granted.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the cases closed. The clerk was instructed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bonilla v. Carter · No. 4:21-cv-01452
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Mar. 9, 2021

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The opinion describes him as a condemned state prisoner. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, counties, and federal agencies. The complaints presented very similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Court's Reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla's request, to the extent he sought 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 he shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and certain claims against federal judicial or bankruptcy-related defendants.

Disposition

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. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.