Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08388
- 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 finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed civil-rights cases were affected by the dismissals. Pending motions were terminated, the cases were closed, and future documents submitted in those cases were to be returned without filing.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also stated that, even if he could proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that additional documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08388
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner described as condemned, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion notes that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in this court with appointed counsel and is also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court additionally noted his extensive history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee restriction
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required fees.
Other barriers identified by the court
The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each case or identify which specific bar applied to which complaint.
Disposition
The court 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 submits in these closed cases.
The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question Judge Hamilton’s impartiality. This statement addressed the court’s participation in the cases; the opinion does not describe a separate recusal motion ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.