Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-04596
- 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 other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases against the County of Santa Cruz and other named defendants were dismissed with prejudice and closed; pending motions were terminated.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against counties and state officials. He sought relief connected to his underlying conviction.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees because he had been barred from that status unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical harm when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without prepaying fees, several legal rules and prior decisions barred the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. 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 · No. 4:22-cv-04596
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers these case numbers: 22-cv-4596-PJH, 22-cv-4624-PJH, and 22-cv-4736-PJH through 22-cv-4743-PJH. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named several counties and state officials as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction.
The order also notes that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition in this court, Case No. 08-0471 YGR, where he has appointed counsel. It further states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings, Case No. 20-2986 PJH.
Filing-fee status
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without prepaying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger.
Other stated bars
The court added that, even if a filing-fee 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 order does not specify which cited bar applies to which case or 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. The order did not describe a decision on the underlying validity of Bonilla's conviction-related claims; it relied on the filing-fee restriction and the stated legal bars.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.