Bonilla v. Unconstitutional Law

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 opinion says he named various state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases and petitions by state and federal courts. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee status

The court addressed whether Bonilla could proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding without prepaying those fees unless he showed that he was facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without prepaying 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 does not separately explain which rule applied to which complaint.

Ruling and case closure

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 those closed cases. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the judge’s impartiality and cited the duty of a judge to hear assigned cases absent a legitimate reason for recusal.