Bonilla v. Calaveras County
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-05514
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Sierra County Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the county clerk’s-office defendants in the related cases were affected. The cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases under federal law against county clerk’s offices. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and had not shown that he faced an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Calaveras County · No. 4:22-cv-05514
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases named numerous county clerk’s offices as defendants and presented nearly identical claims. The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner, has a pending federal challenge to his conviction, and is represented by counsel in state court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The listed cases included 22-cv-5504-PJH, 22-cv-5505-PJH, 22-cv-5506-PJH, 22-cv-5508-PJH through 22-cv-5514-PJH, 22-cv-5517-PJH through 22-cv-5520-PJH, 22-cv-5526-PJH, 22-cv-5528-PJH through 22-cv-5533-PJH, and 22-cv-5561-PJH.
Court’s reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the specified prior dismissals generally cannot use that procedure unless he shows that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding this way and that his allegations did not show the required danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, 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 did not decide whether Bonilla’s underlying claims were correct on their merits.
Disposition
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, and 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.