Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00553
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were various federal and state judges and other officials named in those complaints.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and other officials. The lawsuits sought relief related to 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 danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:25-cv-00553
- 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 and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption, including 24-cv-9255-PJH, 24-cv-9265-PJH, 25-cv-0004-PJH, 25-cv-0137-PJH, 25-cv-0321-PJH, 25-cv-0350-PJH, 25-cv-0351-PJH, 25-cv-0352-PJH, 25-cv-0353-PJH, 25-cv-0355-PJH, 25-cv-0356-PJH, 25-cv-0357-PJH, 25-cv-0450-PJH through 25-cv-0458-PJH, 25-cv-0496-PJH through 25-cv-0499-PJH, 25-cv-0553-PJH, 25-cv-0564-PJH through 25-cv-0566-PJH, 25-cv-0784-PJH through 25-cv-0794-PJH, and 25-cv-0901-PJH, 25-cv-0902-PJH, and 25-cv-0904-PJH through 25-cv-0905-PJH.
Ruling
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
The court rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The court stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Effect of the Order
The listed cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the court directed that they be closed. The order did not grant Bonilla permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, and it terminated the pending motions. The order also directed the clerk not to file later documents submitted in those closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.