Bonilla v. Shubb
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06300
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because filing restrictions and other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, who filed the multiple cases, was affected by the dismissals, the denial of permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, and the order concerning future filings.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights cases without a lawyer against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules identified in the order.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Hamilton also ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Shubb · No. 4:25-cv-06300
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled.
The order covers numerous related case numbers, including 25-cv-6189-PJH and many others listed in the caption. The court noted that Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Reasons for dismissal
The court determined that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
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 of which cited bar applied to which complaint.
The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a basis for questioning the assigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton 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 directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the 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.