Bonilla v. Third Appellate District Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00566
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because filing restrictions and other legal barriers applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the pending motions were terminated and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against judges and other officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other state and federal court cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if his applications to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Third Appellate District Court · No. 4:25-cv-00566
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes him as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. He named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. His requested relief concerned his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal courts.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Court’s reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
The court rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion states 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, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Because the order disposed of the cases based on filing restrictions and other threshold or procedural legal barriers rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims, this summary classifies the order as procedural.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.