Bonilla v. Bashant
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06276
- 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 because Bonilla could not proceed without payment and the claims were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple cases, including various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The cases were closed, and future submissions in them were ordered returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights cases without a lawyer under federal civil-rights law. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. Bonilla sought relief concerning his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that future documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Bashant · No. 4:25-cv-06276
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order concerns the numerous case numbers listed in the caption, including 25-cv-6189-PJH and the other related cases. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court held that Bonilla was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in these cases without paying the filing fees unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required fees.
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 order did not conduct a merits determination that Bonilla’s underlying conviction-related allegations were legally correct; it disposed of the cases based on filing eligibility and other legal bars.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The order noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases. 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.