Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-07498
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named state courts and state judges were defendants in those cases, which were closed and subject to the clerk's instruction to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against state superior courts and state judges. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger. It also said that, even if Bonilla could proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits were barred under several legal rules identified in the order.
The court dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court · No. 4:22-cv-07498
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 27, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified 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 various state superior courts and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.
Other Bars and Disposition
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 legal rules cited in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.