Bonilla v. Segerstrom
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05401
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. Barnes: Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims 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 further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against state courts and judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, his lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the September 26, 2022 order. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Segerstrom · No. 4:22-cv-05401
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. The complaints were described as nearly identical. Bonilla named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The caption lists multiple case numbers, including 22-cv-5345-PJH, 22-cv-5346-PJH, 22-cv-5347-PJH, 22-cv-5348-PJH, 22-cv-5351-PJH through 22-cv-5359-PJH, 22-cv-5360-PJH through 22-cv-5363-PJH, and 22-cv-5391-PJH through 22-cv-5406-PJH as listed in the order.
Filing-fee status
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless 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 fee.
Other legal 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 separately explain the application of each doctrine to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It 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. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on September 26, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.