Bonilla v. Masunaga
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06577
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Judge Hamilton dismissed Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not use fee-waiver status and that several legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the numerous related cases he filed. The order also directs the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and state courts over his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla did not qualify for the exception allowing him to proceed without paying the required filing fees because his complaints did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if his fee-waiver applications were granted.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Masunaga · No. 4:25-cv-06577
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The opinion identifies Bonilla as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The order covers numerous related case numbers, including 25-cv-6189-PJH, 25-cv-6267-PJH, 25-cv-6269-PJH, 25-cv-6276-PJH, 25-cv-6277-PJH, 25-cv-6278-PJH, 25-cv-6280-PJH, 25-cv-6281-PJH, 25-cv-6300-PJH, 25-cv-6301-PJH, 25-cv-6302-PJH, 25-cv-6303-PJH, 25-cv-6344-PJH, 25-cv-6345-PJH, 25-cv-6346-PJH, 25-cv-6347-PJH, 25-cv-6348-PJH, 25-cv-6349-PJH, 25-cv-6350-PJH, 25-cv-6352-PJH, 25-cv-6354-PJH, 25-cv-6356-PJH, 25-cv-6357-PJH, 25-cv-6358-PJH, 25-cv-6359-PJH, 25-cv-6360-PJH, 25-cv-6371-PJH, 25-cv-6436-PJH, 25-cv-6439-PJH, 25-cv-6546-PJH, 25-cv-6575-PJH, 25-cv-6576-PJH, 25-cv-6577-PJH, 25-cv-6578-PJH, 25-cv-6579-PJH, 25-cv-6580-PJH, 25-cv-6581-PJH, 25-cv-6583-PJH, 25-cv-6584-PJH, 25-cv-6585-PJH, 25-cv-6663-PJH, 25-cv-6664-PJH, 25-cv-6665-PJH, 25-cv-6666-PJH, 25-cv-6681-PJH, 25-cv-6683-PJH, 25-cv-6684-PJH, 25-cv-6758-PJH, 25-cv-6759-PJH, 25-cv-6760-PJH, 25-cv-6761-PJH, 25-cv-6762-PJH, 25-cv-6763-PJH, 25-cv-6764-PJH, 25-cv-6765-PJH, 25-cv-6845-PJH, 25-cv-6848-PJH, 25-cv-6850-PJH, 25-cv-6851-PJH, 25-cv-6853-PJH, 25-cv-6854-PJH, 25-cv-6855-PJH, 25-cv-6893-PJH, 25-cv-6894-PJH, 25-cv-6897-PJH, and 25-cv-6898-PJH.
Fee-Waiver Eligibility
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from that status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The allegations did not show such imminent danger. The court therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed under that fee-waiver provision.
Other Reasons Identified by the Court
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application 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 opinion did not provide separate, claim-by-claim analysis of those legal rules.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The court noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those cases.
Disposition
Judge Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court noted that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.