Bonilla v. Hamilton
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07946
- 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 could not proceed without fees and the suits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return without filing any further documents submitted in those cases.
What happened
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 related to his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court said Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fees because his complaints did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules and prior 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 without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Hamilton · No. 4:25-cv-07946
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identifies him as a condemned prisoner who has a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court, with appointed counsel, and state-court proceedings in which he is represented by counsel. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
Filing-fee status and barriers to the lawsuits
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees 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, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and decisions, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, claims against federal judges, and challenges to federal-court actions. The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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 these closed cases. The court additionally rejected the argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in two of the cases.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the cases based on Bonilla’s inability to proceed without paying filing fees and on threshold legal barriers, without reaching the merits of the civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.