Bonilla v. Maier
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09265
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Averill et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying multiple legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close them and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Averill et al., a state prisoner filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other state and federal court cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not use the fee-waiver process because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and cases. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to recuse herself, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Maier · No. 4:24-cv-09265
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner described in the opinion as a condemned prisoner, filed numerous nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those proceedings were cited as related matters.
Fee-waiver ruling
The court stated that Bonilla was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fees unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed under the fee-waiver process in these cases.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims. It ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice.
Recusal and case closure
The court rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the listed cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.