Bonilla v. Ortez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00499
- 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 fees and the suits were barred.
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 to return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
Bonilla v. Averill involved multiple nearly identical complaints filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials under a civil-rights law, seeking relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations did not show such a danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several rules and earlier decisions concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and claims involving courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortez · No. 4:25-cv-00499
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The opinion addresses the case numbers listed in the caption, including 24-cv-9255-PJH and numerous related cases. Bonilla presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his detention.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show that he faced such danger at the relevant time. The opinion therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate merits determination for each claim; it cited those authorities as additional reasons the lawsuits could not proceed.
The court also concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about the 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 those cases.
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 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.