Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09261
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state judges and other officials remained the defendants in those closed cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal and state judges and other officials. He challenged his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without them, unless he showed that he faced an immediate serious danger of physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such a danger. It also said the cases would be barred even if he qualified to proceed without paying fees, citing several legal doctrines and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:24-cv-09261
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints representing himself under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying filing fees. It held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show that Bonilla faced such danger at the time of filing.
Other Bars Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines and decisions identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited bar applied to each complaint.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge who issued this order 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. The opinion also states that this was the 71st order issued by the judge since April 30, 2020, concerning 1,003 different cases filed by Bonilla, and that Bonilla had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.