Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00497
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Averill: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying procedural bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the defendants named in the multiple cases, and the clerk’s office handling those cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Averill et. al., a state prisoner filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal and state judges and other officials. The lawsuits raised nearly identical challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, procedural rules would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in these closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers · No. 4:25-cv-00497
- 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. He is also described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, for which he has appointed counsel, and as represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
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 way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has repeatedly filed qualifying cases generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these allegations did not show such a danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the procedural doctrines identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of his allegations against the defendants.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Affected parties
The order affects Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in the multiple cases, including various federal and state judges and other officials. It also directs the clerk’s office to take specified actions concerning the closed cases and future submissions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.