Bonilla v. Bromberg
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06583
- 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 no imminent danger and several legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The named federal judges, state judges, and state courts were defendants in those cases, which were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if he could proceed without paying fees.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Bromberg · No. 4:25-cv-06583
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows certain claims against state or local officials for violating federal rights. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain which bar applied to which lawsuit.
Ruling and case administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Effect of the ruling
The order ended the listed cases and barred their refiling because the court expressly dismissed them with prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court reached the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction; instead, it relied on filing-fee restrictions and other legal bars to dispose of the lawsuits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.