Bonilla v. McElfresh
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09266
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he could not proceed without filing fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed cases; all of the cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, citing several legal doctrines and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McElfresh · No. 4:24-cv-09266
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or 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, and that he was also represented by counsel in state court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
Bonilla had sought, or might have sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show 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 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 separately explain in detail how each cited decision applied to each complaint.
The court also rejected the suggestion that its judge should be disqualified because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It noted that Bonilla named the judge who issued this order as a defendant in two of the cases and cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.