Bonilla v. Freeman

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal and state judges as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, or potential request, to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without fees may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without 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 also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.

The court rejected any suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

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 the closed cases. The opinion was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.