Bonilla v. Mono County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-05909
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and the suits were otherwise barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's numerous related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants, identified as various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials, were affected by the closure of those cases.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed many nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal and state judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules because they sought relief concerning his conviction or ongoing court proceedings.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. It also said the clerk should return future documents submitted in the closed cases without filing them. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton rejected the argument that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned by the repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Mono County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-05909
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 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. The order covers the numerous related case numbers listed in its caption. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. The court noted that he had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Filing-fee bar
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 complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not resolve the truth of Bonilla's underlying claims; it disposed of the cases based on filing-status and other threshold legal grounds.
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 those closed cases. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.