Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04347
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. California Attorney General, Judge Hamilton dismissed two similar civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's two civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the several state officials named as defendants and directed the clerk to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed two nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against several state officials. He sought relief connected to his conviction and to the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed an immediate serious physical danger. His complaints did not show that danger. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without fees, his lawsuits were barred under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed both cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return future documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:22-cv-04347
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 29, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state officials for certain constitutional violations. The two cases covered by this order presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named several state officials and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court did not describe the merits of those other proceedings in this order.
Reasons for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court held that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court separately stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not further explain the application of those authorities to each individual claim.
Ruling and case status
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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.