Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06963
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Hamilton, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and applying other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Hamilton, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed many similar civil-rights lawsuits against judges and courts. He challenged 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 an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, legal rules barred the lawsuits.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return any further documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:25-cv-06963
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner who is representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the case numbered 25-cv-6353-PJH and the related cases listed in the caption. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in which he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Filing-fee restriction
Bonilla was barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal barriers
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents. The order cited rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, attacks on federal court judgments, and limits on claims against judicial officers and courts. The court did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of his nearly identical claims.
Ruling and case status
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The order notes that Bonilla had filed many similar cases and that he named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases covered by the order, without making specific allegations against her.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.