Bonilla v. Gill
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06952
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Gill, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, whose multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the federal judges, state judges, and state courts he named as defendants.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Gill, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ruled that the filings did not provide a reason to question her impartiality. The clerk was directed to return any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Gill · No. 4:25-cv-06952
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes him as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition in the same court, where he has appointed counsel, and with counsel in state-court proceedings. 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 way other state and federal cases had been handled.
Proceeding Without the Filing Fee
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the 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 stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately analyze each of those rules as applied to each complaint.
Ruling and Case Administration
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against her. The order did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla's conviction or the merits of his complaints; it disposed of the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and the other stated legal bars.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.