Bonilla v. Alameda Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-02065
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Alameda Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s repeated civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and future documents submitted in those cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee 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 by several legal rules even if he were allowed to proceed without paying.
In Bonilla v. Alameda Superior Court, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-02065
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The cases presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same district court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.
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 further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Disposition
The order dismisses the multiple cases with prejudice. It does not separately identify the application to proceed without paying the filing fee as a granted or denied motion; instead, it states that Bonilla may not proceed under the prisoner-filing-fee rule and that the cases are dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.