Bonilla v. Van Rooyen
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07159
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed the related civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s listed civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The defendants named in those cases were no longer required to litigate them in those actions, and the clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and return future submissions without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status unless he showed an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that his complaints did not show such danger and said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, legal rules would still bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Van Rooyen · No. 4:25-cv-07159
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against government officials acting under state authority. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state court proceedings. The court further noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.
Ruling
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger, so he could not proceed without paying filing fees.
The court added that, even if a request to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under legal rules identified in the order, including rules concerning challenges to convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, and lawsuits against judges. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order does not provide a separate claim-by-claim merits ruling.
Additional Orders
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton stated that the cases did not present circumstances requiring her recusal based on the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings, including the fact that Bonilla named her as a defendant in two of the cases. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.