Bonilla v. Amador County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-05198
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also prevents further documents he submits in those closed cases from being filed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal and state courts and government agencies. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from proceeding without fees and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal doctrines and precedents.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Amador County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-05198
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases were assigned case numbers 25-cv-4482-PJH, 25-cv-4527-PJH, 25-cv-4658-PJH, 25-cv-4711-PJH, 25-cv-4894-PJH, 25-cv-4895-PJH, 25-cv-5198-PJH, 25-cv-5199-PJH, 25-cv-5200-PJH, 25-cv-5248-PJH, 25-cv-5249-PJH, 25-cv-5251-PJH, 25-cv-5252-PJH, 25-cv-5253-PJH, 25-cv-5254-PJH, 25-cv-5255-PJH, 25-cv-5256-PJH, 25-cv-5257-PJH, 25-cv-5295-PJH, 25-cv-5297-PJH, and 25-cv-5300-PJH.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state courts and government agencies. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases. The opinion also states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that challenge.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
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 rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
Ruling
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.
The order also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the impartiality of Judge Hamilton. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.