Bonilla v. Desautels

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state officials. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and presented nearly identical claims. Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.

The court noted that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. The court also noted that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his conviction.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision allows a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only when the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing 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, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain how each rule applied to each individual complaint.

The court also addressed impartiality. It concluded that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The court noted that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in two of the cases.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.

The opinion lists multiple case numbers, including 25-cv-7050-PJH, 25-cv-7157-PJH, 25-cv-7159-PJH, 25-cv-7443-PJH, 25-cv-7444-PJH, 25-cv-7445-PJH, 25-cv-7447-PJH, 25-cv-7448-PJH, 25-cv-7449-PJH, 25-cv-7450-PJH, 25-cv-7636-PJH, 25-cv-7637-PJH, 25-cv-7787-PJH, 25-cv-7788-PJH, 25-cv-7866-PJH, 25-cv-7946-PJH, 25-cv-8081-PJH, 25-cv-8082-PJH, and 25-cv-8083-PJH.