Bonilla v. Averill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:24-cv-09255
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying procedural bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the order also terminated pending motions and closed those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits under a federal law allowing claims against officials who violate constitutional rights. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials over his conviction and how his other cases were handled.
Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, but the court said he was barred from doing so because he had repeatedly filed qualifying cases and had not shown that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed these complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if it allowed him to proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in these closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Averill · No. 4:24-cv-09255
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that permits civil-rights claims against state officials acting under state authority. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. The opinion says the complaints presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Filing-fee determination
Bonilla sought, or could have sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from proceeding without the fee unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger.
Other legal bars
The court stated that, even if it granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not analyze each complaint separately or explain which cited rule applies to each case.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected any concern that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Disposition
The cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order does not state that any particular claim was decided on its factual or constitutional merits; the stated grounds were Bonilla’s inability to proceed without paying the filing fee and the identified legal bars.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.