Bonilla v. Averill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00784
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Averill: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not qualify for a fee waiver and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state officials were no longer required to litigate these closed cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and other officials. He challenged his conviction and how his other cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules even if he could proceed without paying those fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return further documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Averill · No. 4:25-cv-00784
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against government actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption, including 24-cv-9255-PJH and 24-cv-9265-PJH and the listed 2025 cases. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Court’s reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible applications to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding that way unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases, including cases naming the judge as a defendant without specific allegations.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Classification note
This is a procedural order. The court disposed of the cases based on Bonilla’s inability to proceed in forma pauperis and threshold legal bars, rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.