Bonilla v. Declaratory Judgment 5
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-01514
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Sonoma County Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the defendants named in those cases were not required to litigate them further.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Sonoma County Clerk’s Office, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against counties, state courts, and clerk’s offices. He challenged his conviction and how other cases had been handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his complaints did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without fees, legal rules would bar the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to return any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Declaratory Judgment 5 · No. 4:22-cv-01514
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases included docket numbers 22-cv-1014-PJH, 22-cv-1023-PJH, 22-cv-1025-PJH, 22-cv-1027-PJH, 22-cv-1028-PJH, 22-cv-1118-PJH, 22-cv-1511-PJH through 22-cv-1516-PJH, 22-cv-1529-PJH, 22-cv-1530-PJH, and 22-cv-1545-PJH.
Bonilla named several counties, state courts, and clerk’s offices as defendants. The opinion says he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Fee-Free Filing Status
The court considered the extent to which Bonilla sought to proceed without paying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding "in forma pauperis," or IFP. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding IFP unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed IFP.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an IFP application 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 does not separately analyze how each cited rule applied to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on March 14, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.