Bonilla v. Mendez

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. 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 by state and federal courts.

The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal habeas petition in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.

Reasons for dismissal

The court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s application to proceed without paying the filing 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 court also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases.

The court rejected the suggestion that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings created a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to hear 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, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.