Bonilla v. Casse
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01672
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Case, Judge Hamilton dismissed seven civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying multiple legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's seven civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directed the clerk to close those cases, terminate pending motions, and return future submissions in them without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed seven nearly identical civil-rights cases against state judges and court employees. He challenged his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and cases, including rules concerning challenges to convictions and interference with ongoing proceedings.
Judge Phyelis J. Hamilton dismissed all seven cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Casse · No. 4:23-cv-01672
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 26, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed seven nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named various state judges and court employees as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
Filing-fee restriction
The court addressed Bonilla's request, or potential request, 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 the fee unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.
Other grounds 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 several legal rules and precedents: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which of those grounds applies to which complaint.
Disposition
Judge Phyelis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed 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.