Bonilla v. Ortez

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 used to sue certain government actors. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his imprisonment.

Filing-fee status and other barriers

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and limitations on suing federal judges or challenging federal court proceedings.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The court noted that Bonilla had named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but had made no specific allegations against her.

The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.