Bonilla v. USDC CAND SF Judges and Court Clerks
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-04527
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Court Judges, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not qualify for a fee waiver and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple cases covered by the order. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and the clerk was directed to close the cases and return without filing further documents submitted in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal law known as Section 1983. He named federal and state courts and government agencies as defendants and sought relief related to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if it granted that fee-waiver request, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. USDC CAND SF Judges and Court Clerks · No. 4:25-cv-04527
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against certain government actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various federal and state courts and government agencies as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
Fee-waiver ruling
Bonilla had sought, or sought to proceed under, the filing-fee waiver process called proceeding in forma pauperis, which allows a qualifying litigant to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from that status unless he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed in forma pauperis.
Other barriers and disposition
The court further held that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines 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 did not describe how each cited rule applied to each individual case.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Judge and order
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on June 30, 2025. The order applies collectively to the multiple case numbers listed in its caption. It does not separately explain the allegations or disposition of each case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.