Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07051
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Hamilton, Judge Hamilton ruled that Steven Wayne Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple related civil-rights cases he filed. The cases were dismissed with prejudice, pending motions were terminated, and future documents submitted in the closed cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Bonilla v. Hamilton concerns multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints filed by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner acting without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts and sought relief related to his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he showed an imminent danger of serious physical injury, and his allegations did not make that showing. The court also said that, even if permission to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal authorities it cited.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future documents without filing them. The court also rejected the suggestion that its impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:25-cv-07051
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute used to bring certain civil-rights claims. The order addresses the case numbered 25-cv-6353-PJH and numerous related cases. 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 handling of other state and federal cases.
The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.
Reasons for dismissal
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal authorities cited in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not resolve the underlying validity of Bonilla’s claims.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Impartiality issue
The court stated that the cases did not present circumstances in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The order noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.