Bonilla v. Unknown
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-07493
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re Steven Wayne Bonilla: Judge Hamilton dismissed five prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice because no imminent danger was shown and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and his five civil-rights cases were affected. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, the pending motions were terminated, and later submissions in the closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In re Steven Wayne Bonilla involved five civil-rights lawsuits filed without a lawyer by a condemned state prisoner. Bonilla challenged his conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases, and he did not name specific defendants.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from doing so unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such a risk. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and precedents.
The court dismissed all five cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on October 8, 2021.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Unknown · No. 4:21-cv-07493
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 8, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed five similar civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion states that Bonilla named no specific defendants.
The opinion also states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. He was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-Fee Ruling
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court found that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred him from doing so unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court relied on earlier proceedings identified in the opinion and found that these complaints did not show such imminent danger.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, 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 opinion does not explain which specific bar applied to which complaint.
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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.