Bonilla v. Ortez

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption, including 25-cv-1979-PJH, 25-cv-1980-PJH, 25-cv-2063-PJH, 25-cv-2064-PJH, 25-cv-2065-PJH, 25-cv-2178-PJH, 25-cv-2179-PJH, 25-cv-2180-PJH, 25-cv-2182-PJH, 25-cv-2183-PJH, 25-cv-2184-PJH, 25-cv-2444-PJH, 25-cv-2445-PJH, 25-cv-2513-PJH, 25-cv-2532-PJH, 25-cv-2533-PJH, 25-cv-2535-PJH, 25-cv-2536-PJH, 25-cv-2537-PJH, 25-cv-2538-PJH, 25-cv-2539-PJH, 25-cv-2540-PJH, 25-cv-2617-PJH, 25-cv-2618-PJH, 25-cv-2621-PJH, 25-cv-2629-PJH, 25-cv-2532-PJH, and 25-cv-2533-PJH as identified in the caption. The complaints named various federal and state judges and other officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.

The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his confinement with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. The complaints in these cases presented nearly identical claims.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding without paying fees may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under that provision and that his allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.

The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which rule applied to which complaint or claim. It states that the cases were dismissed with prejudice and notes Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.

The order also addressed the impartiality of the assigned judge. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality and cited the principle that a judge generally has a duty to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.

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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

This is a procedural order rather than a decision on the underlying civil-rights claims. The court dismissed the cases based on filing-fee restrictions and other threshold legal barriers, without deciding whether Bonilla’s underlying allegations were legally or factually correct.