Bonilla v. Ashby
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07014
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Thompson, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed IFP and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants named in those cases were federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The clerk was directed to close the cases and return future submissions without filing them.
What happened
Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson et al. involves multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and state courts, seeking relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed that way, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and dismissed all the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also declined to question her impartiality, ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Ashby · No. 4:25-cv-07014
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 state and federal cases had been handled.
The order addresses the lead case and the related cases listed in the caption. It also notes that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status and other barriers
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without prepaying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court concluded that the complaints did not show such imminent danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed under that filing-fee status.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not reach the merits of Bonilla’s underlying challenges to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Impartiality issue
The order addressed whether Judge Hamilton’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The court concluded that these were not cases requiring that action. The order notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Judge
The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.