Bonilla v. Volkman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00004
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Averill: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice, ruled Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees, and closed the cases.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected his ability to proceed in those cases without prepaying filing fees and directed the clerk to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Averill et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he 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 doctrines and decisions identified in the order.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:25-cv-00004
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding in that manner 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. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed in forma pauperis.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed in forma pauperis 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 order did not separately analyze each complaint or identify which cited doctrine applied to which case.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also ruled that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.