Bonilla v. Hamilton

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. He filed the complaints without a lawyer. 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 order states that Bonilla also had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The court noted that Bonilla had an extensive history of filing similar cases.

Filing-fee status and dismissal grounds

The court held that Bonilla was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fees, unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees 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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain how each cited rule applied to each individual case.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk 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.

The court separately considered whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. It concluded that these circumstances did not require recusal. The order was signed by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge.