Bonilla v. Averill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-02540
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Villarreal, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla was barred from proceeding without fees and the lawsuits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases, the named federal and state judges and other officials, and the handling of any further documents submitted in the closed cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Villarreal, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute. He sued various federal and state judges and other officials, seeking relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from proceeding without fees, and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Averill · No. 4:25-cv-02540
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. He named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody and with counsel in that proceeding. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Proceeding Without Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in federal court without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without filing fees.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further held that, even if Bonilla’s application to proceed without filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of which doctrine applied to which complaint.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. It stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order states that it was the 74th order issued by the judge since April 30, 2020, concerning 1,090 different cases, and that the judge was the fourth judge assigned to cases filed by Bonilla.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.