Bonilla v. Klatchko

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints representing himself under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases.

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

Filing-fee status and legal bars

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 when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines. The opinion cited rules concerning challenges to criminal convictions, interference with ongoing state proceedings, restrictions on certain challenges to federal courts, and judicial immunity.

Disposition

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

The court separately rejected any suggestion that Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.