Bonilla v. McElfresh

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. The listed cases include multiple case numbers beginning with 24-cv and 25-cv. Bonilla named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants.

The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Reasoning

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without prepaying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or 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 decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of the complaints.

The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and frivolous filings. It stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.

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.

Scope and uncertainty

The opinion caption identifies the defendants as “AVERILL et. al.,” while the supplied case name identifies the case as “Bonilla v. McElfresh.” This summary follows the caption shown in the opinion. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers; the metadata header uses the first listed case number followed by “et al.”