Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner described in the order as condemned, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Pro se” means he filed without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. The order says Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts.

The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The opinion does not provide separate factual descriptions of each complaint.

Court’s reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without prepaying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from proceeding in that manner may do so only if he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court cited prior proceedings stating that Bonilla had been disqualified under that statute and concluded that the allegations in these complaints did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying 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 order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited authority applied to which complaint.

The court also rejected the apparent concern that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases. A footnote states that Judge Hamilton was the fourth judge assigned cases filed by Bonilla and that the order was her 81st order since April 30, 2020, involving 1,302 different 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 order does not separately state a disposition for each pending motion beyond directing that all pending motions be terminated.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order. The court dismissed the cases based on Bonilla’s inability to proceed without prepaying fees and on threshold legal bars, rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.