Bonilla v. Del NorteCounty Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-06528
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Madera County Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice and barred Bonilla from proceeding without filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s related § 1983 cases against county clerks and state superior courts were dismissed with prejudice; the court also barred him from proceeding without paying filing fees in these cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against county clerks and state superior courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying fees.
The court dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Del NorteCounty Superior Court · No. 4:22-cv-06528
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named numerous county clerks and state superior courts and presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other matters had been handled by state and federal courts.
The order addressed the related cases listed in the caption, including case numbers 22-cv-5602-PJH, 22-cv-6123-PJH, 22-cv-6240-PJH, 22-cv-6399-PJH, 22-cv-6400-PJH, 22-cv-6478-PJH, 22-cv-6479-PJH, 22-cv-6510-PJH, 22-cv-6514-PJH, 22-cv-6519-PJH, 22-cv-6528-PJH, 22-cv-6556-PJH, 22-cv-6557-PJH, 22-cv-6558-PJH, 22-cv-6559-PJH, 22-cv-6568-PJH, 22-cv-6569-PJH, 22-cv-6570-PJH, 22-cv-6571-PJH, 22-cv-6572-PJH, 22-cv-6574-PJH, and 22-cv-6575-PJH.
Filing-fee status
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required fees.
Other grounds cited by the court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on October 28, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.