Bonilla v. Freeman

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute used to seek relief for certain violations by officials. The caption lists numerous related case numbers, including 24-cv-7972-PJH, 24-cv-8268-PJH, 24-cv-8410-PJH, 24-cv-8411-PJH, 24-cv-8412-PJH, 24-cv-8413-PJH, 24-cv-8414-PJH, 24-cv-8472-PJH, 24-cv-8473-PJH, 24-cv-8501-PJH, 24-cv-8553-PJH, 24-cv-8554-PJH, 24-cv-8555-PJH, 24-cv-8632-PJH, 24-cv-8842-PJH, 24-cv-8843-PJH, 24-cv-8844-PJH, 24-cv-8845-PJH, 24-cv-8846-PJH, 24-cv-8848-PJH, 24-cv-8849-PJH, 24-cv-8850-PJH, 24-cv-8851-PJH, 24-cv-8852-PJH, 24-cv-8854-PJH, 24-cv-8855-PJH, 24-cv-8856-PJH, 24-cv-8858-PJH, 24-cv-9022-PJH, and 24-cv-9024-PJH.

The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

Bonilla sought, or potentially sought, permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said he was disqualified from that status unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed under that filing-fee provision.

The court separately held that, even if permission to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of which doctrine applied to which lawsuit.

Recusal and disposition

The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. A footnote states that the undersigned was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla’s cases and that this was the 70th case he filed.

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. The order disposed of the matters based on filing-fee eligibility and legal bars rather than resolving the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his other cases.