Bonilla v. Shubb
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07450
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and other legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also directs the clerk to close those cases, terminate pending motions, and return future submissions in them without filing them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of other cases in state and federal court.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Shubb · No. 4:25-cv-07450
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The order identifies Bonilla as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer and as a condemned prisoner. The defendants include various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The order covers these related case numbers: 25-cv-7050-PJH, 25-cv-7157-PJH, 25-cv-7159-PJH, 25-cv-7443-PJH, 25-cv-7444-PJH, 25-cv-7445-PJH, 25-cv-7447-PJH, 25-cv-7448-PJH, 25-cv-7449-PJH, 25-cv-7450-PJH, 25-cv-7636-PJH, 25-cv-7637-PJH, 25-cv-7787-PJH, 25-cv-7788-PJH, 25-cv-7866-PJH, 25-cv-7946-PJH, 25-cv-8081-PJH, 25-cv-8082-PJH, and the related cases identified in the caption.
Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
Additional Grounds
The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines discussed in 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 conviction-related issues in Bonilla's favor or against him; it dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and the additional legal barriers.
The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. The order notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in two of the cases.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed 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.