Bonilla v. Woniy
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06854
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because IFP rules and other legal barriers applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts were dismissed with prejudice, and the cases 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 cases. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and state courts over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if his requests to proceed without paying were granted, citing several legal doctrines and statutes.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Woniy · No. 4:25-cv-06854
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He is described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody and with counsel in state-court proceedings. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other Legal Bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and authorities, including Heck v. Humphrey, which can bar civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, which limits federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and authorities concerning challenges to federal court proceedings.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.