Bonilla v. Averill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-08846
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. U.S. District Court San Francisco, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing proceedings, and court actions.
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 v. Averill · No. 4:24-cv-08846
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 16, 2024
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He represented himself in these cases. The opinion states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.
The complaints were nearly identical. 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.
Court’s analysis
The court considered whether Bonilla could proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under that provision and that these complaints did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of the multiple complaints.
The court also rejected the apparent basis for recusal. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote stated that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases.
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 on December 16, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.