Bonilla v. Clay
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-00905
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Averill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The named federal and state officials were no longer required to litigate these cases in the district court.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Averill and related cases, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal statute allowing claims against officials. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials and challenged his conviction or how his other cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such a danger. It also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, based on several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and interference with other courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them. The court also said its impartiality could not reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases, including cases naming the judge as a defendant.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Clay · No. 4:25-cv-00905
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He filed the complaints without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges and other officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Proceeding Without Prepaying Filing Fees
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Other Grounds Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases 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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court additionally stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The order notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.