Bonilla v. Hamilton

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The opinion says the complaints present nearly identical claims. Bonilla has a pending federal petition in this court with appointed counsel and is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The supplied opinion text contains an incomplete sentence describing some of the matters Bonilla names in the complaints.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

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

Other Grounds for Dismissal

The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines 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 provide a separate, claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited authority applied.

Recusal Issue

The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in two of the cases, although the supplied text does not provide the rest of the explanation in that footnote.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases 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 submits in the closed cases.