Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08769
- 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 was not in imminent danger and other legal rules barred them.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also terminated pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk not to file further documents submitted in them.
What happened
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights cases against various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. He challenged his conviction and how his other cases were handled.
The court said Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because he had previously been barred from using the fee waiver for prisoners, and his complaints did not show that he faced immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could use the fee waiver, other legal rules barred the lawsuits.
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al., Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return future documents Bonilla submits in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08769
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims 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 court cases. The opinion also states that he is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the court, represented by appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee waiver
The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without prepaying the fee unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding under that provision and that these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. The court therefore concluded that he could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Other barriers to the lawsuits
The court further stated that, even if a filing-fee waiver were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also noted Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases. It did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which cited rule applied to which complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected the suggestion that the assigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.