Bonilla v. Volkman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-08554
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple cases he filed against various federal and state judges and other officials; the cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases without a lawyer. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials over his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees because he had previously been barred from using the fee-waiver process and his allegations did not show an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules protecting ongoing or previously decided criminal and court proceedings.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases be returned without filing. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:24-cv-08554
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 16, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating federal rights. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Fee-waiver ruling and barriers to the lawsuits
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. The opinion therefore states that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further held that, even if a fee-waiver request 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 opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Impartiality and recusal
The court rejected the assertion that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases but states that this circumstance did not require recusal. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.