Bonilla v. Casse
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00785
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges and other officials were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk must close the cases, terminate pending motions, and return further submissions in those cases without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
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 any further submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Casse · No. 4:25-cv-00785
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. 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 or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in this court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings concerning his imprisonment. The court also noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.
Ruling
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has previously brought qualifying cases generally cannot proceed without paying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court ruled that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions cited in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the merits of Bonilla’s underlying challenges to his conviction or to the handling of his other cases.
The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. 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. The cases were dismissed with prejudice.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the cases based on prisoner filing-fee restrictions and legal bars without deciding the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.