Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 8, 2021

Bonilla v. County Recorder's Office

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:21-cv-08636
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bonilla v. County Recorder’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and additional legal bars.

Who this affects

Steven Wayne Bonilla’s three civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also directed the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.

What happened

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed several similar civil-rights lawsuits under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. The court said the lawsuits sought relief related to his conviction or to how state and federal courts handled his other cases.

The court found that Bonilla had already been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found no such danger in his complaints. It also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in them without filing them.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bonilla v. County Recorder's Office · No. 4:21-cv-08636
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Dec. 8, 2021

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the order as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction applies unless the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that these complaints did not show such imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Bars Identified by the Court

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal authorities. Those authorities included rules concerning when a civil-rights action may challenge a conviction, when federal courts should refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings, and limits on lawsuits involving federal court proceedings.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.

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.