Bonilla v. Johnson
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07030
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Thompson et al., Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple cases listed in the order. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and future documents submitted in those closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. He named federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning 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 imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules concerning challenges to convictions, ongoing proceedings, and court actions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return future documents without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Johnson · No. 4:25-cv-07030
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the cases listed in the caption, including Case No. 25-cv-6353-PJH and numerous related cases. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of other cases in state and federal court.
The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
Filing-fee restriction
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other legal bars
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules identified in 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 grounds.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also said that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a reason to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge, on August 26, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.