Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06893
- 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 Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return further submissions without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The cases concerned his conviction and how other state and federal court cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not show that danger. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines even if he could proceed without paying the fee.
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 submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing. The judge also concluded that the filings did not provide a basis to question her impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-06893
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against persons acting under state law. The opinion addresses the cases listed under numerous case numbers, including 25-cv-6189-PJH and related cases. Bonilla presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants.
The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same district, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims in Bonilla’s favor or against him; it dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and the stated legal bars.
Ruling and case closure
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The court also addressed Bonilla’s naming of Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases. It concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Hamilton signed the order on August 20, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.