Bonilla v. Givens
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05358
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and the suits 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 to return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Steven Barnes et al. involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints filed by Bonilla, a state prisoner, without a lawyer. He sued state courts and state judges under a federal civil-rights law and sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules and decisions cited in the order.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future filings without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Givens · No. 4:22-cv-05358
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were nearly identical. They named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings challenging his imprisonment.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
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 rules or decisions cited as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each cited bar.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases 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 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.