Bonilla v. Clay

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials. The complaints presented 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 court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The opinion cites those related proceedings but does not decide them in this order.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court said Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without paying under that statute and that his allegations did not show an imminent danger at the relevant time.

The court also stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines identified in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately analyze each case or claim under those authorities.

Ruling and case status

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, stating that no legitimate reason for recusal had been shown. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.