Bonilla v. Clark
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00451
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases against the officials named as defendants were dismissed with prejudice, and future filings in those closed cases will be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against officials. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if he were allowed to proceed without paying. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that the repetitive filings did not provide a valid reason to question her impartiality. The clerk was directed to return future documents submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clark · No. 4:25-cv-00451
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is a federal law that permits certain claims against officials for violating federal rights. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The order also notes Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases.
Rulings
The court addressed Bonilla's requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had qualifying prior cases dismissed generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules identified in the order, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and attempts to obtain relief from federal-court decisions. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion does not provide separate claim-by-claim rulings for each complaint.
The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. It explained that, absent legitimate grounds for disqualification, a judge has a duty to handle assigned cases.
Disposition
The court 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 these closed cases. 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.