Bonilla v. San Mateo Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06896
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Thompson, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s related civil-rights cases and the defendants named in them; the cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other cases were handled.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if it had allowed him to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. San Mateo Superior Court · No. 4:25-cv-06896
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 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 lawsuits against government actors. He represented himself in these cases. 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 state and federal cases.
The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
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 permits such a prisoner to proceed without paying only if he shows that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each of those legal rules in the provided text.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The court noted that Bonilla named Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Disposition
The related cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the pending motions were terminated.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.