Bonilla v. Rogan
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06959
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Thompson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees and his suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the defendants named in the related cases, and the court clerk. The cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed, and further documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and state courts over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he faced an immediate serious physical danger when he filed. The complaints did not show that danger. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, legal rules barred the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Rogan · No. 4:25-cv-06959
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The order covered the listed related cases, including Case Nos. 25-cv-6353-PJH, 25-cv-6847-PJH, 25-cv-6849-PJH, 25-cv-6896-PJH, 25-cv-6899-PJH, 25-cv-6952-PJH, 25-cv-6953-PJH, 25-cv-6954-PJH, 25-cv-6957-PJH, 25-cv-6958-PJH, 25-cv-6959-PJH, 25-cv-6960-PJH, 25-cv-6961-PJH, 25-cv-6963-PJH, 25-cv-6964-PJH, 25-cv-7008-PJH, 25-cv-7009-PJH, 25-cv-7010-PJH, 25-cv-7011-PJH, 25-cv-7012-PJH, 25-cv-7014-PJH, 25-cv-7029-PJH, 25-cv-7030-PJH, 25-cv-7047-PJH, 25-cv-7049-PJH, 25-cv-7051-PJH, 25-cv-7052-PJH, 25-cv-7153-PJH, 25-cv-7154-PJH, 25-cv-7155-PJH, 25-cv-7156-PJH, and 25-cv-7158-PJH.
Reasons for dismissal
Bonilla sought, or might have sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further held that, even if permission to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents it cited: 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 bars. It also stated that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.
The court rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The order noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against the judge.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.