Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-08847
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights lawsuits with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the named judges and other officials were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against judges and other officials. The lawsuits challenged his conviction or how other state and federal cases had been handled.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees 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 by several legal doctrines, including rules concerning challenges to convictions and interference with ongoing 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 submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:24-cv-08847
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. He proceeded without a lawyer in these cases. He also had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction in the same court with appointed counsel, and he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning a similar petition.
The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. They sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the 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 opinion did not separately explain how each cited doctrine applied to each individual case.
The court also addressed judicial impartiality. It concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in two 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 directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 6, 2025. The opinion states that the order covered the multiple case numbers listed in its caption.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.