Bonilla v. Los Angeles Superior Courts
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-05351
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because filing-fee restrictions and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple self-represented civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the pending motions were terminated and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer. He sued federal and state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had been disqualified from that status and had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, legal rules would bar the lawsuits.
The court dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, ended the pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also said the repetitive filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Los Angeles Superior Courts · No. 4:25-cv-05351
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for certain claims against government officials. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials, and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
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 under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by 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 analyze the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Disposition
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 court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question Judge Hamilton’s impartiality.
Result
All listed cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.