Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-08949
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Bonilla v. Anthony: Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice because Bonilla could not proceed without paying fees and his claims were barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice, his requests to proceed without paying filing fees were rejected, pending motions were terminated, and the cases were closed. The named defendants were no longer required to litigate these cases in the district court.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al., Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights lawsuits without a lawyer 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 had previously been barred from proceeding without fees and his complaints did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without fees, the lawsuits would be barred by several legal rules. It dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and closed the cases.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also ruled that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question her impartiality. The clerk was ordered to return any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al. · No. 4:25-cv-08949
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple similar complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.
The opinion notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, in which he had appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.
Rulings
The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless 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 such danger. It therefore ruled that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of which rule applied to which complaint. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice.
The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It stated that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.
Disposition
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on October 28, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.