Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-10024
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Marin County, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
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 of serious physical injury.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Marin County, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if his fee-waiver requests were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lake County Superior Court · No. 4:21-cv-10024
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases were captioned against Marin County and other defendants. The opinion lists these case numbers: 21-cv-010015-PJH, 21-cv-010016-PJH, 21-cv-010017-PJH, 21-cv-010018-PJH, 21-cv-010019-PJH, 21-cv-010020-PJH, 21-cv-010021-PJH, 21-cv-010022-PJH, 21-cv-010024-PJH, 21-cv-010025-PJH, 21-cv-010026-PJH, 21-cv-010028-PJH, 21-cv-010030-PJH, and 21-cv-010031-PJH.
Bonilla presented nearly identical claims in the cases. The opinion says he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. He also had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed under the fee-waiver provision.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the fee 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. The opinion also addressed Bonilla’s naming of the judge as a defendant in one case, stating that the complaint made no specific allegations against the judge and that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for the judge’s impartiality to be reasonably questioned.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.