Bonilla v. Gutierrez

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases.

The opinion noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same district, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his custody.

Proceeding Without Filing Fees

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court relied on Bonilla’s prior disqualification and found that the allegations did not show such danger.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide separate claim-by-claim analysis of those doctrines; it stated that the lawsuits were barred under them.

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

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It 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.