Bonilla v. Elvine-Kreis
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-06098
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Judge O’Farrell, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The named defendants were various state courts and judges.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge O’Farrell et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against state courts and judges. He challenged his conviction and the way other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he faced an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The complaints did not show that danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if his fee applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Elvine-Kreis · No. 4:23-cv-06098
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 21, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the listed related cases, including Nos. 23-cv-6085-PJH, 23-cv-6098-PJH, 23-cv-6099-PJH, 23-cv-6104-PJH, 23-cv-6105-PJH, 23-cv-6106-PJH, 23-cv-6112-PJH, 23-cv-6273-PJH, 23-cv-6430-PJH, 23-cv-6432-PJH, 23-cv-6436-PJH, and 23-cv-6466-PJH.
Bonilla named various state courts and judges as defendants. The court said the complaints presented nearly identical claims concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Fee-waiver status and legal bars
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without fees unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. It found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application 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 did not provide a separate explanation of how each cited rule applied to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.