Bonilla v. Hite

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way other state and federal cases had been handled.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those other proceedings were not resolved by this order.

Filing-fee status and legal barriers

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from that status unless he was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications 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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order also states that the clerk must terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and must return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.

The court additionally rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases and states that the undersigned judge had been the fourth judge assigned to cases filed by him.