Bonilla v. Zeff
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05406
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner lawsuits with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the named state courts and state judges were defendants in those cases.
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 other cases.
The court found that 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, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions and interference with ongoing proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Zeff · No. 4:22-cv-05406
- 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 lists 22 related case numbers, including 22-cv-5345-PJH through 22-cv-5406-PJH. The complaints were nearly identical and named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The opinion also states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody and was represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning that petition.
Filing-fee status and legal barriers
Bonilla sought, or might seek, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred that status because Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without fees, unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately analyze each rule's application to each complaint.
Ruling
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.
Disposition
The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order did not grant permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.