Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07637
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Judge Tara M. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, who filed the cases, and the various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials he named as defendants.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Tara M. Desautels et al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court said Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return future filings in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney · No. 4:25-cv-07637
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases were assigned various case numbers, including 25-cv-7050-PJH, 25-cv-7157-PJH, 25-cv-7159-PJH, and other listed cases. The complaints asserted nearly identical claims against various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of other cases in state and federal court.
The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.
Filing-Fee Status
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 in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Grounds Identified by the Court
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 doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide separate claim-by-claim rulings for each case.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The order additionally addressed Bonilla’s naming of the undersigned judge as a defendant in two cases. The court concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.