Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08126
- 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 after ruling Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and that other legal bars applied.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in his multiple civil-rights cases; the cases were closed, and future documents submitted in them will be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints filed by Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials, seeking relief concerning his conviction or how his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status and 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, legal rules would bar the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to end all pending motions, close the cases, and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08126
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. The order describes Bonilla as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer and as a prisoner under a death sentence. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. His requested relief concerned his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.
The order notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee status
To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after certain prior cases unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court concluded that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing, so he could not proceed under that filing-fee exception.
Other legal bars
The court further concluded that, even if Bonilla's application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not separately explain how each cited authority applied to each complaint.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered 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.