Bonilla v. Ortez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00793
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Averill et al.: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed cases were affected. The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and later documents submitted in those closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the complaints did not make that showing. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and court decisions.
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 Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ortez · No. 4:25-cv-00793
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue certain government officials for violating federal rights. The caption lists numerous related case numbers, including 24-cv-9255-PJH and 24-cv-9265-PJH. Bonilla named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. The complaints sought relief related to his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his imprisonment.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s request, to the extent he sought it, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying the fee unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the complaints did not show imminent danger at that time and held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of each complaint.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
Judge Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.