v. Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-00611
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent-danger exception and additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s three civil-rights cases against various courts and officials, identified by case numbers 23-cv-0607-PJH, 23-cv-0608-PJH, and 23-cv-0611-PJH.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Court Clerk’s Office et. al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits under a federal law allowing claims against government actors. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show such danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines even if he were allowed to proceed without paying.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those cases without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
The detailed version
- v. Bonilla · No. 4:23-cv-00611
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 22, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the order as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases named various courts and officials as defendants. The order states that the complaints presented nearly identical claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order also notes 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 that petition.
Court’s reasoning
Bonilla sought, or appeared to seek, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court said he had been disqualified from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the complaints did not show that Bonilla was in such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not provide a separate analysis of each complaint or explain which cited rule applied to 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 additional 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.