Bonilla v. Whitson
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07787
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Desautels, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and faced other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the multiple related civil-rights cases he filed; the order also affects the government officials named as defendants by ending those cases.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. The cases raised nearly identical challenges involving his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status and had not shown that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if fee-free filing were allowed, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and prior decisions.
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Tara M. Desautels et al., 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 submissions in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Whitson · No. 4:25-cv-07787
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against certain government officials for violations of federal rights. The cases involved various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order covers these 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 other case numbers listed in the caption.
Reasoning
The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from filing without paying fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. The order also stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited by the court, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, and claims against federal courts or judges.
The court further rejected the argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases, including cases naming the judge as a defendant. The order stated that, absent legitimate grounds for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide assigned 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 directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.