Bonilla v. Seeborg

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against state actors. He represented himself and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees. The complaints named various federal or state judges as defendants and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions seeking review of his imprisonment. The court noted that Bonilla had appointed counsel in a pending federal petition and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings.

Reasoning

The court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the 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 complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also rejected the argument that the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, stating that no legitimate reason for recusal had been shown.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton 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.