Bonilla v. Blum
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-02180
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Judge Villarreal: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants named in those cases were federal and state judges and other officials. The clerk was ordered to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal and state judges and other officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases by state and federal courts.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Blum · No. 4:25-cv-02180
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal courts.
The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.
Filing-Fee Restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not conduct a merits determination of Bonilla's underlying conviction-related or case-handling claims.
Ruling
The court dismissed the 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 submitted in the closed cases.
The court separately stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. The opinion 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.