Bonilla v. Ortez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09496
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later documents submitted in them without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Kelly V. Simmons et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued federal and state judges and other officials and sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
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 an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and decisions.
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 further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortez · No. 4:24-cv-09496
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal courts.
The opinion notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was facing an 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. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines and decisions identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion states 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.