Bonilla v. Chhabria
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00789
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Averill et al.: Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because he could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, and the cases were closed. The defendants named in those lawsuits were not required to litigate the claims further in these cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed many similar 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 ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he did not show an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, legal barriers would prevent the lawsuits from going forward. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, meaning the court barred refiling these cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Chhabria · No. 4:25-cv-00789
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed numerous nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for certain violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule generally prevents a prisoner with the relevant filing history from proceeding without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited in the opinion, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits 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.