Bonilla v. Blum
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09257
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the pending motions in those cases were terminated. The named federal and state judges and other officials were defendants in the closed cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other state and federal cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and court decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Blum · No. 4:24-cv-09257
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows certain civil-rights claims against state officials. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief 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 imprisonment in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Filing-fee status
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court found that he was barred from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision contains an exception when a prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
Other stated legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules 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 says these rules barred the lawsuits but does not separately analyze each case or explain which rule applied to which complaint.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in two of the cases.
Ruling and case status
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. The opinion notes that Bonilla had filed many similar cases, including 1,003 cases involving the undersigned judge and three other judges since 2011, according to the footnote’s accounting.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.