Bonilla v. Ryan
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06960
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Thompson, Judge Hamilton dismissed Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits in the case numbers listed in the caption were dismissed with prejudice. The pending motions in those cases were terminated, the cases were closed, and later documents submitted in them were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The lawsuits raised nearly identical challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and prior court decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ryan · No. 4:25-cv-06960
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. They presented nearly identical claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in this court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status
The court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That law allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger. Bonilla 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 doctrines or rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not resolve the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits.
Ruling and case management
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
Disposition
The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice; all pending motions were terminated; and the cases were closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.