Bonilla v. Neideberger
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05362
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees and the suits were independently barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The named state courts and state judges were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against state courts and state judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status and had not shown that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying fees, under several doctrines that limit challenges to convictions and court proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Neideberger · No. 4:22-cv-05362
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to seek relief for violations by state actors. The cases had nearly identical claims. Bonilla named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. He also had a pending federal petition challenging his detention and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that challenge.
Filing-fee status
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee after certain prior cases unless the prisoner shows that he 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. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla's request to proceed without paying the fee 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 did not conduct a merits analysis of whether Bonilla's underlying allegations were valid.
Disposition
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 ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.