Bonilla v. Sloven

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute commonly used to seek relief for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.

The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court noted that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar cases.

Filing-fee status and barriers to the lawsuits

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally disqualifies a prisoner with the specified prior filing history from proceeding without 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 these complaints did not show imminent danger, so Bonilla 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 the rules or doctrines discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s challenges.

Recusal issue and disposition

The court rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion also noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.

Judge Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. She also ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

Classification rationale

This is a procedural order. The court disposed of the cases based on Bonilla’s inability to proceed without paying the filing fee and on threshold or other legal barriers, without deciding whether his underlying conviction-related claims were legally correct.