Bonilla v. Chhabria

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against state actors. The opinion describes Bonilla as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. It also says he had a pending federal petition challenging his custody and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Bonilla named various state courts and federal judges as defendants. His complaints sought relief related to his underlying conviction or to the way other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

Reasons for dismissal

The court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees 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.

The court rejected the suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not provide a legitimate reason requiring the judge to step aside.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.