Bonilla v. Phom

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers, including 20-cv-07561-PJH, 20-cv-07644-PJH, 20-cv-07646-PJH through 20-cv-07713-PJH, and 20-cv-07715-PJH through 20-cv-07717-PJH. The complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Reasoning

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.

The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.

Ruling

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