Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-07311
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and future submissions in those cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges and state courts. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal cases had been handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he qualified for that filing-fee waiver, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:24-cv-07311
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and state courts and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Filing-fee eligibility
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds cited by the court
The court further concluded that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines discussed in 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 of those doctrines.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in three cases but made no specific allegations against her.
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 submits in the closed cases.
Judge
The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.