Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00350
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The decision also affects the various federal and state judges and other officials named as defendants, and directs the clerk to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:25-cv-00350
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeded without a lawyer in these cases. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his conviction.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying fees may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules, including rules associated with challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and challenges to decisions of other courts. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and legal bars without deciding the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his other cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.