Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08896
- 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 because Bonilla could not proceed without fees and the suits faced legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla and the defendants in his multiple civil-rights cases; the cases were dismissed with prejudice, closed, and barred from receiving further filings.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. involved multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints filed by Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, against federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He sought relief concerning his conviction and how other court cases were handled.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status and did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules even if he could proceed without paying fees.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, ended all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08896
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The cases listed multiple defendants, including federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.
The order identifies the cases by multiple case numbers, including 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.
Court’s Ruling
The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the usual filing fees. It stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding in that manner 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 danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those legal bars.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed 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.