Bonilla v. Rosenberg
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05359
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge Barnes, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not meet the danger exception and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file later submissions in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Barnes, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against state courts and judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal challenge to his conviction and was represented by a lawyer in state post-conviction proceedings.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee and that, even if permission had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Rosenberg · No. 4:22-cv-05359
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal challenge to his conviction and was represented by counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed whether Bonilla could proceed in these cases without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified under the statute generally cannot proceed without paying the fee unless, when the complaint is filed, he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. The court therefore concluded that he could not proceed on that basis.
Other stated barriers
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines 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 separate claim-by-claim analyses of those doctrines.
Ruling and case status
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also 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.