Bonilla v. Mendez

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The order noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the district court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings. The court also described his history of filing similar cases. A footnote stated that the order was the 78th issued by Judge Hamilton since April 30, 2020, concerning 1,230 different cases filed by Bonilla, and that Bonilla had filed 962 other cases with three other judges since 2011.

Filing-fee restriction and other legal bars

The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner disqualified from proceeding without paying the fee may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court concluded that these allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee 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 order did not separately explain which cited bar applied to which claim or case.

Ruling and case status

Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also addressed whether the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings required the judge to step aside, stating that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The order noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.

The clerk was ordered 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.