Bonilla v. Villarreal

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in another proceeding, where he had appointed counsel. It also noted that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court described Bonilla as having an extensive history of filing similar cases and stated that the undersigned judge was the fourth judge assigned to his cases and that this was the 70th such case.

Filing-fee status

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, or possible request, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court cited earlier proceedings stating that Bonilla had been disqualified under that provision.

The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other barriers to the lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each doctrine applied.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The court additionally addressed impartiality. Although Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, the court concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.