Bonilla v. Seeborg

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The cases named various federal and state judges as defendants. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s 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 detention or conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The opinion also notes that he had an extensive history of filing similar cases.

Court’s analysis

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 determined that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such imminent danger, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the opinion, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, ongoing state proceedings, and suits seeking relief from judicial proceedings or judicial officers. The court did not grant Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court also rejected the suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, 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. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

Note on case identification

The supplied case name is “Bonilla v. Seeborg,” but the opinion’s caption lists Judge Beth L. Freeman and other defendants rather than Seeborg. The opinion also identifies multiple case numbers; the metadata header uses the first listed number followed by “et al.”