Bonilla v. Villarreal
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00456
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because IFP restrictions and other legal barriers applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affects any further documents he submits in those closed cases, which the clerk must return without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints against judges and other officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other cases in state and federal courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if his applications to proceed without fees 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 submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Villarreal · No. 4:25-cv-00456
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court 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 that petition. The court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
Court’s analysis
Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the complaints did not make that showing. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not resolve the underlying allegations on their merits.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those cases.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed 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 the filing-fee restriction and other legal barriers without deciding the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.