Bonilla v. Volkman
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00457
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in his multiple civil-rights cases; the clerk was also directed to close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials over his conviction and how his other cases were handled.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:25-cv-00457
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal courts.
The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was also represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his conviction. The opinion states that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time, 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 doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those doctrines.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Effect of the order
The order ended the multiple cases listed in the caption and barred refiling those dismissed cases because the court expressly used the words "with prejudice." The order does not decide the merits of Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the merits of the claims in these civil-rights complaints; it disposes of the cases based on filing-fee restrictions and other legal bars.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.