Bonilla v. Young
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06140
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Young, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without filing-fee relief and his claims were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; the defendants named in those cases were not required to litigate the claims.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Young, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed many nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials. His claims concerned his conviction and how other state and federal court cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, several legal rules would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis 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. Young · No. 4:25-cv-06140
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against people acting under state authority. The complaints named 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 in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same district, where he has appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without the fee after qualifying prior cases, unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s 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 several legal rules and precedents, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and claims against federal judges or courts.
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 Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla repeatedly filed frivolous cases, noting that a judge generally has a duty to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on prisoner filing-fee restrictions and legal bars 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.