Bonilla v. Wong
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00564
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and legal barriers to the lawsuits.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the listed defendants and pending motions in those cases were affected by the closures.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal and state judges and other officials. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been disqualified from proceeding without fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules.
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 submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Wong · No. 4:25-cv-00564
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and other officials and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his detention, for which he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state court proceedings concerning that petition.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from using that procedure unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.
Other Grounds Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several authorities, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and challenges to certain court actions. The opinion cites Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The court also considered whether the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It concluded that these circumstances did not require the judge to step aside. The order notes 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 ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 30, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.