Bonilla v. Ervine
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05392
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Barnes, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he could not proceed without paying and the claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the named state courts and judges were defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and reject further filings in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, 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 was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and court decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ervine · No. 4:22-cv-05392
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue state actors for alleged violations of federal rights. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints were nearly identical and named numerous state courts and state judges as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his detention and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his detention.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule generally prevents a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. He therefore 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 were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several doctrines and authorities: Heck v. Humphrey, which limits civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, which concerns federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and authorities addressing challenges to federal court proceedings and decisions. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.