Bonilla v. Villapudua
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06345
- 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 use the fee-waiver process and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed cases, including various federal judges, state judges, and state courts.
What happened
Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and state courts over his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without the fee, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines identified in the order.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Villapudua · No. 4:25-cv-06345
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He represented himself in these cases. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order 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 concerning custody. The opinion stated that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar cases.
Fee-waiver determination
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said he had previously been disqualified from proceeding without the fee unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those doctrines.
Ruling and case closure
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected Bonilla’s apparent argument that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Result
The court’s order ended the listed cases by dismissing them with prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying conviction’s validity in Bonilla’s favor or against him; instead, it relied on the filing-fee restriction and the stated legal bars to the lawsuits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.