Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08125
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without the filing fee and the lawsuits were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were named in cases that were closed, and the clerk was directed not to file further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony, Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer against federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court found that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found no such danger. It also said that, even if he could proceed without the fee, the lawsuits were 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 that future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08125
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
Proceeding Without the Filing Fee
The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits such a prisoner to proceed without the fee only if he was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show that Bonilla faced that danger. He therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
Other Bars to the Lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims.
Recusal
The court also addressed whether the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It concluded that these circumstances did not require the judge to step aside and cited the general duty of a judge to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.
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 additional 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.