Bonilla v. Goodfellow
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-00608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office et. al., Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s civil-rights cases with prejudice because he showed no imminent danger and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s three listed civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to close those cases, terminate pending motions, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office et. al., Steven Wayne Bonilla filed several nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of his other cases by courts and officials.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from doing so unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show such danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Goodfellow · No. 4:23-cv-00608
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 22, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various courts and officials and presented nearly identical claims concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of other cases by state and federal courts. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited authority applied.
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 on February 22, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.