Bonilla v. Roach
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-08857
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Roach, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple Section 1983 lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and he could not proceed in those cases without paying filing fees because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury. The cases were closed and future submissions were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Roach, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases under a federal law known as Section 1983. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fees because he had previously filed three or more cases that counted against him, and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying the fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
The court dismissed all the cases with prejudice, terminated the pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a basis to question her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Roach · No. 4:24-cv-08857
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
The order covers multiple related cases filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla. The caption lists numerous case numbers, including 24-cv-8847-PJH, and identifies Judge Kelly V. Simmons and others as defendants. Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court noted that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction and that he has appointed counsel in that proceeding. The court also noted that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla’s request, to the extent he sought one, to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees at the outset. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding this way unless he showed that 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.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not conduct a merits determination of whether Bonilla’s underlying claims were legally correct.
The court also addressed impartiality. It concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The order 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, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge
The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge, on January 6, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.