Bonilla v. Simmons
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00357
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and legal barriers to the lawsuits.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further submissions in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights cases under federal law. The cases raised nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials, challenging his conviction or how other courts handled his cases.
The court held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee under the three-strikes rule because his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if his requests to proceed without paying were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Simmons · No. 4:25-cv-00357
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. The court said Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly called the three-strikes rule. That rule permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only when the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
Other Legal Barriers
The court further stated that, even if it granted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, which can prevent civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, concerning federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and rules discussed in Demos v. U.S. District Court and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.
The court additionally rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order stated that a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.