Bonilla v. Pennypacker
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06765
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants named in the related cases, including various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The order also directed the clerk to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Pennypacker · No. 4:25-cv-06765
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The caption lists numerous related case numbers. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that conviction.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from that status unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been 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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The opinion 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.