Bonilla v. Orozco
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06354
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla ineligible for fee-free filing and citing procedural bars.
The order affected Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple cases he filed against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and the cases were closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court et al. involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints filed by Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself. He sued federal judges, state judges, and state courts over his conviction and how other cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred for other legal reasons, including rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and limits on suing judges and courts.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Orozco · No. 4:25-cv-06354
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody. The court also noted Bonilla's history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee ruling
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without the fee after qualifying prior cases, unless the prisoner shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that he 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 several legal doctrines. It cited Heck v. Humphrey, which limits certain civil-rights challenges that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, concerning federal interference with ongoing state proceedings; Demos v. U.S. District Court; and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which concerns limits on suits against judges and courts.
The court did not separately analyze the merits of Bonilla's underlying claims. Instead, it dismissed the cases with prejudice based on the filing-fee restriction and the cited legal bars.
Disposition
The court dismissed all of the listed 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 submitted in those closed cases.
The court additionally rejected any suggestion that Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.