Bonilla v. Bamattre-Manoukian
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09256
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants named in those cases were not required to litigate the underlying claims, and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons et al., the plaintiff filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases, naming judges and other officials as defendants.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that such a risk existed when they were filed. The court also said that, even if fee waivers were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Bamattre-Manoukian · No. 4:24-cv-09256
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order lists numerous related case numbers. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal courts.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court further noted that he had an extensive history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee status
To the extent Bonilla 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 was in immediate 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. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited rule applied to which complaint.
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 submits in the closed cases. The order additionally rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The judge noted that Bonilla named her as a defendant in two of the cases.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold legal 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.