Bonilla v. Yabino

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The court stated that the complaints presented nearly identical claims. The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and state-court proceedings in which he was represented by counsel.

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that the allegations in these complaints did not show such danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and precedents identified as 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 civil-rights claims on their merits.

Disposition

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

The court separately rejected the suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Judge Hamilton noted that she had a duty to sit in cases assigned to her absent legitimate grounds for recusal. The opinion also noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in two of the cases, although the excerpt does not provide the remainder of that discussion.