Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-09115
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the listed civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the ten listed cases; the order also directs the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights lawsuits against state superior courts and judges. He raised nearly identical claims about his conviction and how other cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate serious danger of physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for additional legal reasons even if his request to proceed without paying fees were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the listed cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was instructed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:22-cv-09115
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 13, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various state superior courts and state judges as defendants. The court said the complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Bars Identified 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 the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide 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 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.