Bonilla v. Montenegro

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against certain government actors. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.

The order concerns the case numbers listed in the caption, including 25-cv-6189-PJH and numerous related cases. The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction and legal bars

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

The court further stated that, even if an 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 order did not separately analyze each of those authorities as applied to each individual case.

Rulings

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any need for the judge to recuse herself, explaining that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about her impartiality. The court noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.

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.

Effect

The order ended the multiple listed cases with prejudice. The opinion describes the dismissal as resting on Bonilla's inability to satisfy the statutory exception to the filing-fee restriction and on additional legal bars that would apply even if he could proceed without paying the fee. It does not decide the underlying conviction's validity or the merits of each asserted claim.