Bonilla v. Boergers

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer 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 way state and federal courts had handled his other cases.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, in which he has appointed counsel. He is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings as well.

Court’s analysis

The court held that, to the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute prevents a prisoner with the relevant filing history from proceeding without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and decisions, including rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, and claims against federal judicial defendants. The court 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 Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases but did not identify a legitimate reason requiring the judge to recuse herself.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.