Bonilla v. Riverside County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06058
- 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 could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The named federal and state judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials were no longer required to defend these closed cases, and future documents Bonilla submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple 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 the filing fees because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, citing several legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and interference with other courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to end all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Riverside County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-06058
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.
Reasons for dismissal
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 an imminent 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 filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which bar applied to which complaint or claim.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases.
Disposition
The court 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’s ruling rested on the filing-fee restriction and other legal bars rather than deciding the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of his 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.