Bonilla v. Fleming
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07156
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Thompson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple related civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The complaints did not make that showing. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. The clerk was directed to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Fleming · No. 4:25-cv-07156
- 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 concerns numerous related cases, including the case number listed above. Bonilla is described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody and with counsel representing him in that federal matter. The order also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.
Reasons for dismissal
The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not identify which doctrine applied to which individual claim or case.
Ruling and case administration
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases; the order noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
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.
Scope note
The opinion’s caption identifies Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson and other defendants, while the supplied case name identifies “Fleming.” “Fleming” does not appear in the opinion text. The order lists many related case numbers; this header uses the first listed case number.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.