Bonilla v. Villarreal
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09459
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases and the defendants named in them were affected. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and the cases were closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits under a federal law allowing claims against officials. He named federal and state judges and other officials, and sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases. Bonilla represented himself in these lawsuits but had lawyers in other habeas proceedings.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that such a risk existed when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and judicial conduct.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Villarreal · No. 4:24-cv-09459
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identifies the related case numbers as 24-cv-8847-PJH, 24-cv-8857-PJH, 24-cv-9025-PJH, 24-cv-9026-PJH, 24-cv-9152-PJH, 24-cv-9153-PJH, 24-cv-9175-PJH, 24-cv-9256-PJH, 24-cv-9257-PJH, 24-cv-9258-PJH, 24-cv-9259-PJH, 24-cv-9260-PJH, 24-cv-9261-PJH, 24-cv-9262-PJH, 24-cv-9263-PJH, 24-cv-9264-PJH, 24-cv-9266-PJH, 24-cv-9267-PJH, 24-cv-9269-PJH, 24-cv-9270-PJH, 24-cv-9271-PJH, 24-cv-9272-PJH, 24-cv-9281-PJH, 24-cv-9282-PJH, 24-cv-9284-PJH, 24-cv-9458-PJH, 24-cv-9459-PJH, 24-cv-9460-PJH, 24-cv-9461-PJH, 24-cv-9491-PJH, 24-cv-9492-PJH, 24-cv-9495-PJH, 24-cv-9496-PJH, 24-cv-9497-PJH, 24-cv-9498-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing.
The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited bar applied to which complaint.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the presiding judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the presiding 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.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar cases. It says the presiding judge was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla's cases and had issued the 71st order concerning 1,003 different cases filed by him since April 30, 2020; it further states that Bonilla had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.