Bonilla v. Diedrich

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. The complaints were described as 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 order states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court and appointed counsel in that matter. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further concluded that, even if a fee application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.

The court rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases but does not identify a legitimate reason for recusal.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.