Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-00359
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. El Dorado County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he could not proceed without filing fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also ended pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against state superior courts, state judges, and federal judges. He challenged his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.
Bonilla sought to proceed without paying filing fees, but the court said he was barred from doing so unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not make that showing.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ruled that the lawsuits would be barred even if Bonilla could proceed without paying fees, and dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to close the cases, end pending motions, and return future filings without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:23-cv-00359
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants included various state superior courts, state judges, and federal judges in the Eastern District of California. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion also noted that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner, has a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel, and is represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning that petition.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the authorities it cited: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each authority’s application to each complaint.
Ruling and disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was ordered 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.