Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.

Background

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

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those proceedings were background to the court’s ruling on the multiple civil-rights cases.

Ruling

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior filing dismissals generally may not proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules or doctrines identified through Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not assign a particular one of those authorities to each individual case or claim.

The cases were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the court used a disposition that bars refiling the dismissed cases. 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 the closed cases.

Recusal discussion

The court separately stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable question about the undersigned judge’s impartiality. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the listed cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, closed the cases, and directed the clerk to return later submissions without filing.