v. Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-03957
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bonilla v. County of Monterey Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and procedural barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s five listed civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the named federal and state officials were defendants in those cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. County of Monterey Superior Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal and state officials. He challenged matters involving his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger. It also said that, even if his applications to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines identified by the court.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- v. Bonilla · No. 4:25-cv-03957
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named various federal and state officials and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody and with counsel appointed in that proceeding. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state court proceedings involving a similar type of petition.
Court’s reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding under that provision unless he met that exception.
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion therefore disposed of the cases on threshold and procedural grounds rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
Classification note
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on prisoner-filing restrictions and other procedural barriers without reaching the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.