Bonilla v. Gill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-05604
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Gill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in the multiple related lawsuits, including federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Gill, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed many nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials, seeking relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show 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 fees, the lawsuits were barred by legal rules identified in the order.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any additional documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gill · No. 4:25-cv-05604
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 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 for claims against state actors. The order lists numerous related case numbers. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his state and federal cases had been handled.
The court noted that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also noted that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.
Rulings
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the order, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Disposition and Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other legal bars without deciding the underlying civil-rights claims. 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.