Bonilla v. Byrd

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. 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 and the way his state and federal cases had been handled.

The opinion states that Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court further noted Bonilla’s history of filing similar cases.

Filing-fee status

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The allegations did not show that he faced such danger at the relevant time. As a result, he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal bars

The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.

Impartiality and disposition

The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the impartiality of the assigned judge. A footnote 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. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.