Bonilla v. Lassen County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-05252
- 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 paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directs the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. U.S. District Court Northern District Judges and Court Clerks et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases and named federal and state courts and government agencies as defendants.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been barred from proceeding without those fees and his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and decisions.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future filings in them without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any claim that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lassen County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-05252
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 30, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The court considered the complaints together in the listed cases. Bonilla presented nearly identical claims, 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.
Proceeding Without the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee 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. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not explain in detail how each cited authority applied to each individual case.
The court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases. It 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 also noted that Bonilla named the Northern District as a defendant in two of the cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.