Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials as defendants. The opinion states that the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases in state and federal court.

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

Court’s Reasoning

The court found 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 fee. The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee 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 opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited rule applied to which complaint.

The court also addressed impartiality and stated that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for disqualification, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

Disposition

The court dismissed the multiple cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.