Bonilla v. Wilkens

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The order covers 22 related cases, including Case Nos. 24-cv-3209-PJH, 24-cv-3212-PJH, 24-cv-3228-PJH, 24-cv-3238-PJH, 24-cv-3249-PJH, 24-cv-3342-PJH, 24-cv-3418-PJH, 24-cv-3419-PJH, 24-cv-3507-PJH, 24-cv-3509-PJH, 24-cv-3511-PJH, 24-cv-3514-PJH, 24-cv-3515-PJH, 24-cv-3516-PJH, 24-cv-3517-PJH, 24-cv-3533-PJH, 24-cv-3534-PJH, 24-cv-3537-PJH, 24-cv-3562-PJH, 24-cv-3563-PJH, 24-cv-3564-PJH, and 24-cv-3600-PJH.

The complaints were filed without a lawyer. They presented nearly identical claims against various state courts and federal judges. The order says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts. The order also notes that he had a pending federal case challenging his conviction and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that challenge.

Court’s analysis

The court considered Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under that provision and concluded that these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate, claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited bar applied to each complaint.

The court also addressed impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not provide the remainder of that footnote in the text supplied here.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order states that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases, including filings involving other judges, but it does not make a separate ruling on the merits of the underlying conviction.

Classification rationale

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee restrictions and threshold legal bars, without deciding whether Bonilla’s underlying civil-rights claims were legally valid on the merits.