Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06054
- 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 fee-free filing was barred and the claims had legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed many nearly identical civil-rights cases. He challenged his conviction and how other state and federal court cases had been handled, naming judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules, even if a fee waiver were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:25-cv-06054
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers numerous related cases. 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 and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The court noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, in which he had appointed counsel. The court also noted that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.
The court stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to hear assigned cases.
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.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and legal barriers without 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.