In re Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04624
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. County of Santa Cruz, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants in the listed civil-rights cases. The cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed, and future documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In In re Bonilla, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against counties and state officials. He sought relief related to his underlying conviction.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed that way, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and 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 those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- In re Bonilla · No. 4:22-cv-04624
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named several counties and state officials and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction. The court said the actions presented nearly identical claims.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. It further stated that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Court’s Analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding that way 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 such danger.
The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide further explanation of each cited bar.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.