Bonilla v. County of San Mateo
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04738
- 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 because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, preventing those cases from continuing; the opinion also directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. County of Santa Cruz, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed several nearly identical civil-rights cases against counties and state officials. He sought relief related to his underlying conviction.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that danger when they were filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. County of San Mateo · No. 4:22-cv-04738
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named several counties and state officials as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction. The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings related to his custody.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed Bonilla's request, or possible request, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules described in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not analyze the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
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. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.