Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08764
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony, Judge Hamilton dismissed with prejudice multiple pro se civil-rights cases because Bonilla did not qualify for a fee waiver and the suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in the listed cases; all listed cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials, seeking relief related to his conviction and the handling of his other court cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had been barred from using the fee-waiver process, and his allegations did not show an immediate threat of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without fees, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended pending motions, closed the cases, and ordered that future filings in them be returned without being filed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also rejected any suggestion that she should step aside because of the repetitive filings. The order did not resolve the truth of Bonilla’s underlying claims; it disposed of the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and other legal bars.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08764
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the Northern District of California with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The court cited Bonilla’s prior proceedings as showing that he had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed in these cases under the fee-waiver process. The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several authorities, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing proceedings, and limits on suing federal judges or courts.
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Recusal
The court also addressed whether Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It concluded that these circumstances did not require her to recuse herself, noting that a judge generally has a duty to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.
Disposition and Scope
The order disposed of the cases on filing-status and legal-bar grounds. It did not decide the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.