Bonilla v. Clay

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against certain state actors. The opinion identifies 15 related case numbers. Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other municipal and court officials as defendants. The court said the complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed petitions and other cases.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Rulings

The court addressed Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees. It held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from proceeding without payment unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The allegations did not show that danger.

The court further held that, even if Bonilla’s requests to proceed without payment were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed 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.

Recusal issue

The court also stated that these cases did not present circumstances in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton declined to step aside and signed the order.

Disposition

The cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order did not grant Bonilla permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and it closed the cases.