Bonilla v. Clay

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He named various federal or state judges as defendants. The court stated that the complaints were one of two similar forms in which Bonilla changed the defendant's name. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his earlier filings seeking review of his detention and conviction in state and federal court.

Bonilla also sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion stated that he had previously been disqualified from proceeding without those fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint.

Court's Analysis

The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees 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, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis explaining which cited rule applied to which lawsuit.

The court also stated that the cases did not present circumstances in which the undersigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate reasons for a judge to step aside, the judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.