Bonilla v. Segerstrom
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06349
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple prisoner lawsuits with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and citing several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants named in those cases included various federal judges, state judges, and state courts.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed many nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits. He sued federal judges, state judges, and state courts over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, several legal rules would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Segerstrom · No. 4:25-cv-06349
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed numerous nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner and has a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain how each cited rule applied to each individual case.
Disposition
The court 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 further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court additionally rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.