Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-06112
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla v. O’Farrell and related cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and later submissions were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge O’Farrell et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against state courts and judges. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been disqualified from using the fee-waiver process and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and prior decisions it cited.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:23-cv-06112
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 21, 2023
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The order covers the cases numbered 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. The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner, has a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction with appointed counsel, and is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Bonilla’s complaints presented nearly identical claims against various state courts and judges. The order states that he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.
Fee-waiver status
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so 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. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
Other stated barriers
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application 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 additional analysis of those authorities.
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. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.