Bonilla v. Plumas County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06898
- 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 did not meet the imminent-danger exception and the lawsuits were independently barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed cases, including the courts and judges he named.
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. 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 fee because he had previously been barred from proceeding without paying unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical injury. The complaints did not show that risk. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by legal rules identified in the order.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned based on the filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Plumas County Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-06898
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed numerous civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 covers the cases listed in the caption, including 25-cv-6189-PJH and many related case numbers. The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
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 statute permits a prisoner with that disqualification to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such imminent danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other grounds for dismissal
The court further ruled that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the order, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, claims against federal judicial officers or courts, and related limits on such civil-rights actions. The order cited Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
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 court additionally stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of Bonilla’s filings did not create a reasonable basis to question Judge Hamilton’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.