Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05402
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes, Judge Hamilton dismissed the multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, preventing those cases from continuing. The court also directed the clerk to close the cases and return later submissions without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits 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 barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed an immediate serious physical danger. The complaints did not show that danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:22-cv-05402
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identifies Bonilla as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment and says he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition. 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.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from that status unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain how each cited rule applied to each complaint.
Disposition
Judge 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 directed to return, without filing, any additional 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.