Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08765
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony was dismissed with prejudice; Judge Hamilton ruled Bonilla could not proceed without fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants named in those cases were various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al., Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. He represented himself and sought relief concerning his conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The court said Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying filing fees unless he showed an immediate risk of serious physical harm. The complaints did not show that kind of danger when they were filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred even if his fee applications were granted, citing several federal doctrines and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases and return future filings in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08765
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases were assigned the following numbers: 25-cv-8125-PJH, 25-cv-8126-PJH, 25-cv-8388-PJH, 25-cv-8389-PJH, 25-cv-8699-PJH, 25-cv-8700-PJH, 25-cv-8761-PJH, 25-cv-8762-PJH, 25-cv-8763-PJH, 25-cv-8764-PJH, 25-cv-8765-PJH, 25-cv-8766-PJH, 25-cv-8768-PJH, 25-cv-8769-PJH, 25-cv-8896-PJH, 25-cv-8897-PJH, 25-cv-8898-PJH, 25-cv-8901-PJH, 25-cv-8948-PJH, and 25-cv-8949-PJH.
Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. The opinion says he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in that court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his conviction.
Reason for dismissal
The court addressed Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only by showing that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court concluded that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court separately stated that, even if an application to proceed without 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 opinion does not give a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited bar applied to which allegation.
Disposition
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was ordered to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submits in these closed cases.
The court further rejected the suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on October 28, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.