Bonilla v. Ortega

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order covers numerous related cases, including 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.

The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials. The order states that Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla's possible request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner with the relevant filing history may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that these allegations did not show such a danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were 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 opinion does not separately explain which cited bar applies to which complaint.

The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases but does not provide the details of that claim in the excerpt supplied.

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 ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The order additionally notes Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases, including the court's statement that this was the 77th order issued by Judge Hamilton since April 30, 2020, concerning 1,162 different cases, and that Bonilla had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.