Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-07711
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the defendants in the multiple related civil-rights cases, and the pending motions and case dockets that the clerk was ordered to terminate and close.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against state superior courts and judges. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been barred from proceeding without payment unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that risk. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Marin County Superior Court · No. 4:22-cv-07711
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 27, 2022
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints named various state superior courts and state judges as defendants. They presented nearly identical claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The opinion also notes that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his confinement in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It further states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings related to such a petition.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
To the extent Bonilla sought to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court stated that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and 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 explain how each cited authority applied to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court disposed of the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and other threshold legal bars, rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.