Bonilla v. Sommons

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law used to bring certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints named various state courts and state officials. They presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings. The order covers the multiple case numbers listed in its caption.

Court’s reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, to the extent he sought to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from that payment option may proceed only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the authorities it cited, including 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 cited bar in detail.

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

Disposition

The court 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 the closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.