Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-02182
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. State of California, Judge Hamilton dismissed 13 related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's 13 civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated the pending motions and closed those cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. State of California, Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed 13 similar civil-rights cases against various state courts and agencies. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury, which his complaints did not show. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without fees.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed all 13 cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was instructed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court · No. 4:24-cv-02182
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various state courts and agencies as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same district, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment. The order further states that he had an extensive history of filing similar cases.
Reasons for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla's requests to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said he was disqualified from proceeding without fees 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, so Bonilla could not proceed without fees.
The court also stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees 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 separately analyze which of those authorities applied to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis Hamilton on April 29, 2024.
Related case numbers
The order covers Case Nos. 24-cv-2153-PJH, 24-cv-2180-PJH, 24-cv-2181-PJH, 24-cv-2182-PJH, 24-cv-2239-PJH, 24-cv-2241-PJH, 24-cv-2242-PJH, 24-cv-2243-PJH, 24-cv-2254-PJH, 24-cv-2261-PJH, 24-cv-2308-PJH, 24-cv-2437-PJH, 24-cv-2438-PJH, and 24-cv-2439-PJH.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.