Bonilla v. McElfresh

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed numerous complaints representing himself under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his state and federal cases.

The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same district, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his conviction.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without fees under that provision and 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 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 does not separately explain which rule applies to which complaint.

Recusal issue

The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote states that the judge was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla’s cases and that this was the seventieth such case. The footnote also states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases.

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, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Because the court dismissed the matters based on filing-fee eligibility and legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims, this is a procedural order.