Bonilla v. Maxwell
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06371
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court cases were dismissed with prejudice after Judge Hamilton found no imminent danger and identified multiple legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple related cases covered by the order; the order also affects the defendants named in those cases by closing the cases and ending the pending motions.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed many nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits under a federal civil-rights law. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and state courts, seeking relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he received permission to proceed without paying the fee.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Maxwell · No. 4:25-cv-06371
- 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, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government actors. The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption. Bonilla presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. The order says he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled.
The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same district, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction. The court referred to those matters as related proceedings without addressing their merits in this order.
Permission to Proceed Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court stated that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars and Disposition
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 and decisions identified in the order: 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 grounds.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any concern that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted 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.