Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07029
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice; pending motions were terminated and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson et al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been barred from proceeding without fees unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury, which his complaints did not show. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits were barred by other legal rules and dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any basis for questioning her impartiality, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:25-cv-07029
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. The opinion states that Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. It also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
Other legal bars and disposition
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Without deciding the underlying claims in Bonilla's favor or against him on their merits, the court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Impartiality and case closure
The court rejected the argument that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings created a reasonable question about Judge Hamilton's impartiality. 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.
Judicial action
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered the order dismissing the cases with prejudice on August 26, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.