Bonilla v. Lopez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06762
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple pro se civil-rights cases with prejudice because the complaints showed no imminent danger and were barred by other doctrines.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the multiple related cases, including various federal judges, state judges, and state courts.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and state courts over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying the fee, several legal rules would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Lopez · No. 4:25-cv-06762
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
This order addresses the multiple related cases listed in the caption. Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and 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 court also noted that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The opinion cited Bonilla's earlier proceedings and stated that he has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.
Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional Bars
The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and precedents cited as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate merits determination of Bonilla's underlying claims.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge's impartiality. The clerk was ordered 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.