Bonilla v. Villarreal
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-01064
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Linda Clark, Judge Hamilton dismissed 16 related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the plaintiff in the 16 listed cases, was affected by the dismissals with prejudice, the termination of pending motions, and the direction that further documents in the closed cases be returned without filing. The named defendants were affected by the closure of the cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed 16 nearly identical civil-rights complaints under a federal law known as Section 1983. The opinion says he is a condemned prisoner with pending federal and state habeas proceedings represented by counsel.
The court found that Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The allegations did not show such danger. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and decisions.
The court dismissed all 16 cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Villarreal · No. 4:25-cv-01064
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed 16 nearly identical complaints asserting civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeded without a lawyer in these cases. The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
The opinion says the complaints involved Bonilla's underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. The excerpt does not describe the specific claims against each defendant.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from using that procedure unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.
Other Bars Cited by the Court
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis in the excerpt.
Ruling and Case Administration
The court dismissed the 16 cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases.
The court separately rejected any suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.