Bonilla v. Goodfellow
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06143
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminates pending motions, closes the cases, and directs the clerk not to file further documents submitted in those closed cases.
What happened
Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been barred from fee-free litigation unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that risk. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if fee-free filing were allowed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Goodfellow · No. 4:25-cv-06143
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers the cases listed under numerous related case numbers, including 25-cv-5296-PJH and 25-cv-5351-PJH through 25-cv-6274-PJH. Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Reasons for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from fee-free filing may proceed that way only if 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 a danger. The court therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court separately stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and decisions: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not explain each doctrine in detail, but it states that these barriers applied to the lawsuits.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order cites the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order also notes Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases, including the court's statement that the undersigned judge had issued 77 orders concerning 1,162 different cases filed by him since April 30, 2020, and that he had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.