Bonilla v. Giuliani
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06760
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and procedural bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directs the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the cases, and return later submissions without filing them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights cases without a lawyer against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules, including rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and court decisions.
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. Giuliani · No. 4:25-cv-06760
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute used to bring certain civil-rights claims. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The order covers the listed related cases, including No. 25-cv-6189-PJH and numerous other case numbers. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment for which he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.
Reasons for dismissal
The court considered whether Bonilla could proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 order described these rules as barring the lawsuits but did not separately analyze each cited rule in detail.
Ruling and case administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on August 20, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.