Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08766
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Anthony, Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice because Bonilla was not in imminent danger and his suits were legally barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the government officials he sued; the listed cases were dismissed with prejudice, closed, and any further documents submitted in them were ordered returned without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al., Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under a federal law allowing suits against government officials. He sued various federal judges, state judges, and other officials over his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying filing fees because he had previously been barred from that status and his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to 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-08766
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows civil-rights lawsuits against government officials. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases. The court noted that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings.
Proceeding Without Prepaying Filing Fees
The court addressed Bonilla’s requests, or possible requests, to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed in forma pauperis.
Other Grounds for Dismissal
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed in forma pauperis were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each doctrine applied to each case.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and 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.