Bonilla v. Penney
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05353
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named state courts and state judges were defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against state courts and state judges.
Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court. He sought permission to file without paying the filing fees, but the court found that his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints.
The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if fee-waiver applications were granted, and dismissed the cases with prejudice. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Penney · No. 4:22-cv-05353
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases 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), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Court’s reasoning and ruling
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees 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 opinion then ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. It also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.