Alameda County Superior court v. Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-00068
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. El Dorado County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner lawsuits with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against state superior courts, state judges, and federal judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
Bonilla sought to proceed without paying filing fees, but the court found that he was barred from doing so unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found no such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules protecting criminal judgments and court proceedings.
In Bonilla v. El Dorado County Superior Court et al., Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Alameda County Superior court v. Bonilla · No. 4:23-cv-00068
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were filed in multiple cases, including Case Nos. 23-cv-0031-PJH, 23-cv-0032-PJH, 23-cv-0033-PJH, 23-cv-0034-PJH, 23-cv-0068-PJH, 23-cv-0254-PJH, 23-cv-0356-PJH, 23-cv-0357-PJH, 23-cv-0358-PJH, 23-cv-0359-PJH, and 23-cv-0360-PJH.
The complaints raised nearly identical claims against various state superior courts, state judges, and federal judges in the Eastern District of California. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Filing-Fee Restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee in these cases.
Other Legal Bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. United States District Court, or Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate merits analysis of each claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge, on January 27, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.