Bonilla v. Ohta
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06273
- 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 filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple listed cases, including judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials named in the complaints.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Sacramento County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against judges, courts, and law-enforcement officials. He challenged his conviction and how other cases had been handled.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons even if he could proceed without paying.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return further documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ohta · No. 4:25-cv-06273
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows civil-rights claims against government actors. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants. The opinion states that Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The opinion identifies these case numbers: 25-cv-5296-PJH, 25-cv-5351-PJH, 25-cv-5352-PJH, 25-cv-5353-PJH, 25-cv-5595-PJH, 25-cv-5596-PJH, 25-cv-5597-PJH, 25-cv-5598-PJH, 25-cv-5600-PJH, 25-cv-5601-PJH, 25-cv-5602-PJH, 25-cv-5603-PJH, 25-cv-5604-PJH, 25-cv-5605-PJH, 25-cv-5606-PJH, 25-cv-5900-PJH, 25-cv-5903-PJH, 25-cv-5905-PJH, 25-cv-5906-PJH, 25-cv-5907-PJH, 25-cv-5909-PJH, 25-cv-5910-PJH, 25-cv-5912-PJH, 25-cv-5915-PJH, 25-cv-5916-PJH, 25-cv-5917-PJH, 25-cv-5918-PJH, 25-cv-5920-PJH, 25-cv-6015-PJH, 25-cv-6051-PJH, 25-cv-6052-PJH, 25-cv-6054-PJH, 25-cv-6055-PJH, 25-cv-6056-PJH, 25-cv-6057-PJH, 25-cv-6058-PJH, 25-cv-6059-PJH, 25-cv-6060-PJH, 25-cv-6140-PJH, 25-cv-6141-PJH, 25-cv-6142-PJH, 25-cv-6143-PJH, 25-cv-6144-PJH, 25-cv-6273-PJH, and 25-cv-6274-PJH.
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 accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been 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 explain which cited doctrine applied to which individual case or claim.
Ruling and case status
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected the argument that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.