Bonilla v. Stamps
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07443
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Tara M. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla did not meet the imminent-danger exception and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple § 1983 civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminates pending motions, closes the cases, and directs the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Tara M. Desautels, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also stated that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Hamilton dismissed all of the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return future documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Stamps · No. 4:25-cv-07443
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in this court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state court proceedings.
Reasoning
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without that fee may do so 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 imminent danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents identified in the opinion, including the rule concerning claims that would improperly call a conviction into question, the rule limiting federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings, and authorities concerning challenges to court proceedings and judges. The court also stated that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.
The court rejected the suggestion that the repetitive and frivolous filings gave a reason to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion states that a judge generally has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge absent legitimate grounds for disqualification.
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 further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The order states that the undersigned judge was the fourth judge assigned cases filed by Bonilla and that the order was the 80th order issued by that judge since April 30, 2020, concerning 1,282 different cases. It also states that Bonilla had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.