Bonilla v. San Bernardino County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-05249
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Judges, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice and barred Bonilla from proceeding without paying filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice; the order also denied him permission to proceed without paying filing fees and directed the clerk to close the cases and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Judges and Court Clerks, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued various federal and state courts and government agencies over his conviction and how other cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from that status and did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if his fee applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated 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. San Bernardino County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-05249
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The listed defendants included various federal and state courts and government agencies. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had filed many similar cases in the past.
Filing-fee status and dismissal grounds
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without paying under that provision and that these complaints did not show such imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not resolve the underlying claims on their merits.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered 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 was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on June 30, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.