Bonilla v. Lopez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s numerous related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. Pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and further documents submitted in those closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed many civil-rights cases without a lawyer under a federal law allowing suits against state officials. The cases raised nearly identical challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the cases would be barred by several legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lopez · No. 4:25-cv-06278
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute used to seek relief for certain violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The order covers numerous related cases. Bonilla presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
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 proceeding without the fee may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under that statute.
The court found that the allegations did not show immediate danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were 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 provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which particular bar applied to which complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the cases did not require the assigned judge to step aside merely because the filings were repetitive and frivolous. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
This was a procedural disposition based on the filing-fee restriction and other legal bars; the order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.