Bonilla v. Unknown
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-07491
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re Steven Wayne Bonilla: Judge Hamilton dismissed five civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose five civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was also directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In re Steven Wayne Bonilla involved five similar civil-rights complaints filed without a lawyer by a state prisoner. He sought relief concerning his conviction or the handling of his other cases, but named no specific defendants.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had been disqualified from that status and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents. It dismissed all five cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return any further filings without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Unknown · No. 4:21-cv-07491
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 8, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed five similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion says that he did not name specific defendants. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Bars and Disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, 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. Without providing further analysis of which bar applied to which complaint, the court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents 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.