Bonilla v. Yabino
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice, finding no imminent danger and citing several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges and other officials. The cases sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Yabino · No. 4:25-cv-00458
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption, including 24-cv-9255-PJH and numerous related cases. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s potential requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant filing history 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 imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
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 identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and allegedly frivolous cases. The order noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against the judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.