Bonilla v. Averill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-01683
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases against various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer against federal judges, state judges, and superior courts. The complaints concerned his conviction and related petitions challenging it.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for additional legal reasons even if that status were granted. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on March 22, 2021. She also rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned based on the repetitive and frivolous filings, including one case naming her as a defendant without specific allegations against her.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Averill · No. 4:21-cv-01683
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases were assigned case numbers 21-cv-01638-PJH, 21-cv-01639-PJH, 21-cv-01640-PJH, 21-cv-01641-PJH, 21-cv-01681-PJH, 21-cv-01682-PJH, 21-cv-01683-PJH, 21-cv-01684-PJH, 21-cv-01685-PJH, 21-cv-01870-PJH, 21-cv-01872-PJH, 21-cv-01874-PJH, 21-cv-01875-PJH, 21-cv-01876-PJH, and 21-cv-01952-PJH.
The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or his related petitions challenging it. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court addressed whether Bonilla could proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court determined that Bonilla had previously been disqualified and that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other grounds identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s application to proceed without paying the fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
Recusal issue
The court also addressed whether the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It concluded that these were not cases requiring the judge to step aside. The footnote states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in case number 21-cv-01875-PJH, but the complaint raised no specific allegations against the judge; the provided opinion text ends before the footnote is complete.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.