Bonilla v. Eller
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05346
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Barnes, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the cases were closed, and the clerk was directed to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer against state courts and judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed that way, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Eller · No. 4:22-cv-05346
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
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 provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or decisions identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate analysis explaining how each cited authority applies to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits 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.