Bonilla v. Ortega

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.

The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner who had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his custody.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the court's filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner with the required history of dismissed or frivolous cases may proceed without paying fees only if he shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also noted Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that Judge Hamilton's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The opinion does not provide a separate ruling on the underlying conviction itself.