Bonilla v. Moskowitz

Background

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

The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, for which he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The order notes Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

The court addressed whether Bonilla could proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the fee.

The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain how each rule applies to each case.

Ruling

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

The court separately considered whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton concluded that these circumstances did not provide a basis for questioning her impartiality. The order notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.