Bonilla v. Volkman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09025
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, ending those cases and terminating their pending motions. The order also affects the judges and other officials named as defendants because the cases against them were closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases without a lawyer against federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he was barred from that status under federal law and had not shown that he faced an immediate serious physical danger when he filed the cases. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred for reasons including challenges to his conviction, interference with ongoing proceedings, or limits on suing federal judges and courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:24-cv-09025
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described in the order as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. The order says the complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court then stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines or rules. The order cited limits on using civil-rights claims to challenge convictions, limits related to ongoing state proceedings, and restrictions involving federal courts and judges. The opinion does not analyze the underlying factual merits of Bonilla’s claims.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton 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. The court additionally rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings.
The opinion states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in two of the cases, but it concluded that there was no legitimate reason for her to recuse herself.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.