Bonilla v. Yabino
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09026
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed with prejudice the prisoner’s repeated civil-rights lawsuits and ruled he could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The named federal and state judges and other officials were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and other officials. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal court cases were handled.
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the lawsuits. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several other legal rules, even if he could proceed without paying.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and ordered the clerk to return future filings in those cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Yabino · No. 4:24-cv-09026
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain claims against state officials for violations of constitutional rights. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers. Bonilla named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. The complaints presented nearly identical claims 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 proceedings challenging his conviction. The court further noted his extensive history of filing similar cases.
Court’s reasoning
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court also stated that, even if permission to proceed without paying 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 provide separate claim-by-claim analysis of those authorities.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold or procedural bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.