Bonilla v. Mendez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00455
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. Pending motions in those cases were terminated, and later documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against officials. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal cases were handled, naming judges and other officials as defendants.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been barred from that status unless he showed an immediate serious physical danger, which his complaints did not show. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that later documents Bonilla submitted in them be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Mendez · No. 4:25-cv-00455
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law used for certain civil-rights claims against officials. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.
Filing-fee status
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from that status unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. The opinion therefore stated that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Reasons for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in them.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on January 30, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.