Bonilla v. Judge Robinson
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06267
- 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 other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also ended pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court et al., Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer. He challenged his conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases, naming federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his prior filings disqualified him from that status, and his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules even if his fee applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Judge Robinson · No. 4:25-cv-06267
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury” when he filed his complaints. The court determined that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents the court cited, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore 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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Impartiality issue
The court rejected the suggestion that the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her. Judge Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.