Bonilla v. White

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that permits certain claims against government actors. He represented himself in these cases and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The complaints named various federal or state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his self-filed petitions asking state and federal courts to review his imprisonment. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had appointed counsel in a separate federal petition and counsel in state-court proceedings.

Permission to proceed 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), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations in these cases did not show such a danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Additional grounds

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees had been 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 opinion does not provide a separate analysis applying each of those authorities to each individual case.

Recusal and disposition

The court also rejected the suggestion that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, stating that these were not cases requiring the judge’s recusal. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.