Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08897
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Anthony, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla was barred from fee-waiver status and his claims faced other legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla, the defendants named in his multiple civil-rights complaints, and the pending motions and cases identified in the caption.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, 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 could not proceed without paying filing fees because he did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying fees, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules and prior decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the clerk to close the cases. The court also said that the repetitive filings did not provide a basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08897
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.
The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his detention.
Fee-waiver status and other legal bars
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That law permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules or doctrines identified through Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of Bonilla’s civil-rights allegations.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and it ordered that any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order noted that the judge had handled many cases filed by Bonilla, but concluded that this did not establish a legitimate reason for recusal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.