Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2021

Bonilla v. Volkman

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:21-cv-00576
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bonilla v. Chhabria, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.

Who this affects

Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were various federal and state court judges and several municipalities.

What happened

In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Vince G. Chhabria, et al., a state prisoner filed several similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal and state judges and municipalities. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.

The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines and dismissed the cases with prejudice.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases without filing them.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bonilla v. Volkman · No. 4:21-cv-00576
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Jan. 27, 2021

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeded without a lawyer in these cases. The defendants included various federal and state court judges and several municipalities.

The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way his other petitions and cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, to the extent he sought it, to proceed without paying filing fees. It stated that he had previously been disqualified from that status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal judgments, interference with ongoing proceedings, and certain claims against courts or judges.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the argument that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings required the judge to step aside. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.

Judge

The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.