Bonilla v. Reynolds

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.

The order covers the related cases identified by the court as Case Nos. 25-cv-5296-PJH, 25-cv-5351-PJH, 25-cv-5352-PJH, 25-cv-5353-PJH, 25-cv-5595-PJH, 25-cv-5596-PJH, 25-cv-5597-PJH, 25-cv-5598-PJH, 25-cv-5600-PJH, 25-cv-5601-PJH, 25-cv-5602-PJH, 25-cv-5603-PJH, 25-cv-5604-PJH, 25-cv-5605-PJH, 25-cv-5606-PJH, 25-cv-5900-PJH, 25-cv-5903-PJH, 25-cv-5905-PJH, 25-cv-5906-PJH, 25-cv-5907-PJH, 25-cv-5909-PJH, 25-cv-5910-PJH, 25-cv-5912-PJH, 25-cv-5915-PJH, 25-cv-5916-PJH, 25-cv-5917-PJH, 25-cv-5918-PJH, 25-cv-5920-PJH, 25-cv-6015-PJH, 25-cv-6051-PJH, 25-cv-6052-PJH, 25-cv-6054-PJH, 25-cv-6055-PJH, 25-cv-6056-PJH, 25-cv-6057-PJH, 25-cv-6058-PJH, 25-cv-6059-PJH, 25-cv-6060-PJH, 25-cv-6140-PJH, 25-cv-6141-PJH, 25-cv-6142-PJH, 25-cv-6143-PJH, 25-cv-6144-PJH, 25-cv-6273-PJH, and 25-cv-6274-PJH.

Reasoning

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

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide a separate analysis applying each cited decision to each complaint. The court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.

The court rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. It stated that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered 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.