Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08763
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Anthony, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla showed no imminent danger and the suits were otherwise barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the defendants named in the multiple cases, and the handling of those closed cases by the clerk.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases 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 ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08763
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The opinion notes that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas proceeding with appointed counsel, identified as Case No. 08-0471 YGR, and was represented by counsel in a state habeas proceeding, identified as Case No. 20-2986 PJH. The court also referred to his prior related proceedings, Case Nos. 11-3180 CW and 13-0951 CW, concerning his ability to proceed without paying filing fees.
Filing-fee status and other barriers
The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Other court statements
The court stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases.
The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on October 28, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.