Bonilla v. Ortez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09269
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after ruling Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The named defendants included various federal and state judges and other officials.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons et. al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and other officials. He challenged his conviction and the handling of other cases in state and federal courts.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been disqualified from that status and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules.
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 those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortez · No. 4:24-cv-09269
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers, including 24-cv-8847-PJH, 24-cv-8857-PJH, 24-cv-9025-PJH, and others. Bonilla is described as a state prisoner facing a death sentence. He named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants.
The complaints raised nearly identical claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying the fees unless the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without fees and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla had been permitted to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several authorities: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not conduct a merits determination of Bonilla’s underlying claims.
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 as a defendant in two of the cases.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on prisoner-fee eligibility and threshold legal bars without 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.