Bonilla v. Judge Dawn

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He proceeded without a lawyer in these cases. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his custody in this court with appointed counsel and is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The opinion refers to those matters by case number and does not decide them here.

Filing-fee restriction

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless, when he filed the complaints, he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Accordingly, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Additional grounds for dismissal

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and precedents: Heck v. Humphrey, concerning certain civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction; Younger v. Harris, concerning federal interference with ongoing state proceedings; Demos v. U.S. District Court; and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each complaint or identify which particular bar applied to which claim.

The court also addressed judicial impartiality. It stated that the cases were not ones in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. A footnote states that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in two of the cases.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases 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 these closed cases. The order does not reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s challenges to his conviction or to the handling of his other cases.