Bonilla v. Blum

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain officials for violating federal rights. 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 other cases in state and federal court.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.

Filing-fee status

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That law permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying filing 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 did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those grounds.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court rejected the argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in two of the cases.