Bonilla v. Trinity County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-05907
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because they could not proceed and were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in the related civil-rights cases, including federal and state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials. The cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed many similar lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He sued federal and state judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had been barred from that status and had not shown an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if that status were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Trinity County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-05907
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple similar complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against officials acting under state law. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order addresses numerous related cases, including Case Nos. 25-cv-5296-PJH, 25-cv-5351-PJH, 25-cv-5352-PJH, 25-cv-5353-PJH, 25-cv-5595-PJH, 25-cv-5596-PJH, 25-cv-5597-PJH, 25-cv-5598-PJH, 25-cv-5600-PJH, 25-cv-5601-PJH, 25-cv-5602-PJH, 25-cv-5603-PJH, 25-cv-5604-PJH, 25-cv-5605-PJH, 25-cv-5606-PJH, 25-cv-5900-PJH, 25-cv-5903-PJH, 25-cv-5905-PJH, 25-cv-5906-PJH, 25-cv-5907-PJH, 25-cv-5909-PJH, 25-cv-5910-PJH, 25-cv-5912-PJH, 25-cv-5915-PJH, 25-cv-5916-PJH, 25-cv-5917-PJH, 25-cv-5918-PJH, 25-cv-5920-PJH, 25-cv-6015-PJH, 25-cv-6051-PJH, 25-cv-6052-PJH, 25-cv-6054-PJH, 25-cv-6055-PJH, 25-cv-6056-PJH, 25-cv-6057-PJH, 25-cv-6058-PJH, 25-cv-6059-PJH, 25-cv-6060-PJH, 25-cv-6140-PJH, 25-cv-6141-PJH, 25-cv-6142-PJH, 25-cv-6143-PJH, 25-cv-6144-PJH, 25-cv-6273-PJH, and 25-cv-6274-PJH.
Reasons for dismissal
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 faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not show such danger. The court therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the fee.
The court also ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee 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 does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited rule applied to each case.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court further rejected recusal based on the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings, stating that the circumstances did not reasonably call the judge’s impartiality into question.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.