Bonilla v. Freeman

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against certain government actors for violating federal rights. He also asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the court’s filing fees in advance. The complaints named various federal or state judges as defendants and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or to the handling of his pro se habeas petitions, meaning petitions he filed without a lawyer.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. It also states that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed a complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the allegations did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 analyze those barriers separately for each case.

The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order does not separately identify a different disposition for any individual case. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.