Bonilla v. Moskowitz

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials. The opinion says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Proceeding Without Prepayment of Filing Fees

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without prepayment.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepayment were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited principle applied.

The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion states that the judge had a duty to sit absent legitimate grounds for disqualification.

Disposition

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