Bonilla v. Lloyd

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the order as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

Proceeding Without Filing Fees

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule permits a person with the relevant filing history to proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the person was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show that he faced such danger.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying 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 order did not decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of the allegations against the defendants.

Recusal Issue

The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. The order noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those 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. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.