In Re: to the Matter of Steven Wayne Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06189
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, his pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and future documents submitted in those closed cases were to be returned without filing. The named federal judges, state judges, and state courts were defendants in the dismissed cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed many nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, several legal rules would bar the lawsuits. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any suggestion that she should step aside because of Bonilla’s repetitive filings. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- In Re: to the Matter of Steven Wayne Bonilla · No. 4:25-cv-06189
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed numerous nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion lists multiple case numbers, beginning with 25-cv-6189-PJH and including many other cases. Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The opinion states that Bonilla had appointed counsel in a pending federal habeas petition and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The court also noted his extensive history of filing similar cases.
Rulings
The court held that, to the extent Bonilla sought to proceed without paying filing fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and authorities, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain how each cited authority applied to each individual case. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
The court also determined that its judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and allegedly frivolous cases. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Disposition
The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order did not decide the validity of Bonilla’s underlying conviction on the merits; it relied on the filing-fee restriction and the stated legal bars. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on August 20, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.