Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09270
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the lawsuits were otherwise barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because the court found no imminent danger, and the listed cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The defendants and any pending motions in those cases were also affected by the closure.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under a federal civil-rights law. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials, seeking relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. His allegations did not show that danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions it cited.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. It ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also said the repetitive filings did not provide a basis to question her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:24-cv-09270
- 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 caption lists numerous related case numbers. 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 way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Filing-fee eligibility
The court addressed Bonilla's possible applications to proceed without paying the filing fee. It stated that he had already been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying the fee only when the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.
The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show imminent danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other stated grounds
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 resolve the truth of Bonilla's underlying allegations; the stated grounds were his filing-fee ineligibility and the cited legal bars.
The court also addressed judicial impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not make these cases ones in which the undersigned judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge 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 those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 6, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.