Bonilla v. Shubb
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07155
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Shubb, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after Bonilla failed to show imminent danger and the court identified additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, and state courts were dismissed with prejudice; all pending motions in those cases were terminated and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Bonilla v. Shubb, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that he had not made that showing. It also said that, even if he could proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and prior decisions cited in the order.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Shubb · No. 4:25-cv-07155
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows certain civil-rights claims against government actors. The order addresses the case numbers listed in its caption. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide whether Bonilla’s underlying civil-rights allegations were legally valid; it dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and the additional legal bars.
The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.