Bonilla v. United States Attorney's Office
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04216
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Coleman, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without the filing-fee waiver and his lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed under the filing-fee waiver or submit further documents in the closed cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Adrienne L. Coleman, et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed several similar civil-rights cases without a lawyer. He sued a federal judge, state courts, and state and federal officials over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court said he was barred from that status unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints, and it found that he had not made that showing. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if that permission were granted.
Judge 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 those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. United States Attorney's Office · No. 4:22-cv-04216
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims. They named a federal judge, various state courts, and several state and federal officials as defendants. The requested relief concerned Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition in the district court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed Bonilla’s request, or potential request, to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals cannot proceed under that status unless the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding under that status and that these complaints did not show such imminent danger. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Other barriers to the lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying filing 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. The opinion did not separately explain which cited legal bar applied to each case or claim.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee restrictions and legal bars, the opinion did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.