Bonilla v. Lee
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00791
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights lawsuits with prejudice because filing-fee restrictions and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the defendants named in those cases were not required to litigate the claims further in those closed cases.
What happened
Bonilla v. Averill involved multiple lawsuits filed without a lawyer by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner. The complaints named federal and state judges and other officials and challenged his conviction or how other cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury, so he could not proceed without paying filing fees. The court also ruled that the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if he could proceed without those fees. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in them without filing them.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also concluded that the repetitive filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lee · No. 4:25-cv-00791
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Pro se” means he filed without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical, named various federal and state judges and other officials, and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases. The caption lists numerous case numbers.
The order noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee determination
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits such a prisoner to proceed without those fees only if he shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
Other legal bars and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Impartiality
The court also concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question Judge Hamilton’s impartiality. The order noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Bottom line
The order ended the listed cases with prejudice based on Bonilla’s inability to satisfy the prisoner filing-fee exception and the additional legal bars identified by the court. It did not reach the underlying merits of his challenges to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.