Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The order identifies the related cases by these case numbers: 25-cv-8125-PJH, 25-cv-8126-PJH, 25-cv-8388-PJH, 25-cv-8389-PJH, 25-cv-8699-PJH, 25-cv-8700-PJH, 25-cv-8761-PJH, 25-cv-8762-PJH, 25-cv-8763-PJH, 25-cv-8764-PJH, 25-cv-8765-PJH, 25-cv-8766-PJH, 25-cv-8768-PJH, 25-cv-8769-PJH, 25-cv-8896-PJH, 25-cv-8897-PJH, 25-cv-8898-PJH, 25-cv-8901-PJH, 25-cv-8948-PJH, and 25-cv-8949-PJH. The opinion also notes that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-Fee Bar

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

Other Grounds Cited

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines 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 assign each cited ground to a particular complaint or claim.

The court also addressed whether Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It concluded that the filings did not provide a basis for recusal and cited the general duty of a judge to decide cases assigned to that judge when no legitimate reason for recusal exists.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. 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 submits in those closed cases. The order states that the judge was the fourth judge assigned to Bonilla’s cases and that it was the judge’s 81st order concerning Bonilla since April 30, 2020, involving 1,302 different cases.