Bonilla v. Lara
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00453
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Averill: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in the multiple cases were affected. The cases were closed, pending motions were terminated, and later documents submitted in those cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases, naming judges and other officials as defendants.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been barred from that status unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show such danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if that status were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lara · No. 4:25-cv-00453
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same district court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted that he had an extensive history of filing similar cases.
Rulings
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in the opinion, including doctrines concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and attempts to challenge other court proceedings. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.
The court rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Disposition
The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return later submissions without filing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.