Bonilla v. Yabino
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons, Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued federal and state judges and other officials over his conviction and how other court cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla could not use the fee-waiver process because he had previously been disqualified from doing so and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Yabino · No. 4:24-cv-09458
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
The order covers multiple cases listed under separate case numbers. Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed the complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He is described as a condemned prisoner and as having a pending federal petition challenging his conviction, with appointed counsel. The order also says he was represented by counsel in state court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Bonilla brought nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal court cases had been handled.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot use that fee-waiver procedure unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court said Bonilla had already been disqualified under that statute and that these complaints did not show such danger. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying filing fees.
The court added that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the authorities it cited: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not explain separately how each cited authority applied to each complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
This was a procedural dismissal rather than a decision resolving the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.