Bonilla v. Sixth Appellate District Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-02847
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. United States District Court et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed seven related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent-danger exception and other bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's seven related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. United States District Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed seven nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction or how other courts handled his cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been barred from doing so unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found no such danger. It also ruled that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred under several legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all seven cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Sixth Appellate District Court · No. 4:23-cv-02847
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 27, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner described in the opinion as condemned, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order addresses seven related case numbers: 23-cv-2507-PJH, 23-cv-2745-PJH, 23-cv-2746-PJH, 23-cv-2747-PJH, 23-cv-2776-PJH, 23-cv-2847-PJH, and 23-cv-2890-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in this court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-Fee Status
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on June 27, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.