Bonilla v. Stamps
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06055
- 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 Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits faced additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The defendants named in those cases were affected by the dismissals, and pending motions were terminated.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases, naming federal and state judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, legal rules would bar the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a proper reason for her to step aside. She directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Stamps · No. 4:25-cv-06055
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed numerous nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government actors. The order covers the multiple case numbers listed in the caption. Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his state and federal cases had been handled.
The order notes that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court, where he has appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.
Rulings
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions cited in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order does not provide a separate merits determination on the underlying conviction-related allegations.
Other Orders and Disposition
The court stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on July 28, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.