Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 19, 2022

Bonilla v. Volkman

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:22-cv-05133
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Bonilla v. Humboldt County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and the suits were barred.

Who this affects

Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were several state courts, state judges, and other state and federal officials identified in the complaints.

What happened

In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Humboldt County Superior Court and related cases, Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against state courts, judges, and other officials. He challenged his conviction and how other cases were handled.

The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.

Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents submitted in them without filing them.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:22-cv-05133
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Sept. 19, 2022

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. He named several state courts, state judges, and other state and federal officials as defendants, and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Filing-fee status

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That law permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other legal barriers

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and decisions, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, challenges to federal court proceedings, and limits on claims against judges and courts.

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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.