Bonilla v. Ortez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-00360
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. El Dorado County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named state and federal court defendants were affected by the closure of those cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. He is a condemned state prisoner and had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, along with state court proceedings handled by counsel.
The lawsuits made nearly identical claims against state superior courts, state judges, and federal judges in California’s Eastern District. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way other state and federal cases had been handled.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. She also ruled that the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if he could proceed without paying, and dismissed the cases with prejudice, closed them, and ordered pending motions terminated.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortez · No. 4:23-cv-00360
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various state superior courts, state judges, and federal judges in the Eastern District of California as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition in the same court and appointed counsel in that proceeding. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding this way unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the relevant time, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and precedents. These included rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, certain challenges to federal court actions, and claims against federal judges or courts.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The opinion does not separately analyze the merits of the underlying allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.