Bonilla v. Santa Clara County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06894
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights lawsuits with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without filing fees and faced additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases, along with the defendants named in those cases, were affected by the dismissals and case closures.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Alameda County Superior Court, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits. He sued federal judges, state judges, and state courts and sought relief related to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the complaints did not make that showing. It also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was instructed to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Santa Clara County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-06894
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He represented himself in these actions. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment in this court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule prevents a prisoner with qualifying prior cases from proceeding without paying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Additional grounds for dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.
Ruling and case status
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the filings were repetitive and frivolous and rejected any argument that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the filings. 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.
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the actions based on the filing-fee restriction and other legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.