Bonilla v. Sweet

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The caption lists multiple related case numbers, including 20-cv-07561-PJH and 20-cv-07644-PJH through 20-cv-07716-PJH, with some numbers omitted from that range. The complaints named Clarence Don Clay and other defendants. The opinion says the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se petitions and other cases by state and federal courts.

The opinion also notes that 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.

Rulings

The court addressed Bonilla’s request, to the extent he sought it, to proceed without paying the filing fees. It found that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from proceeding without those fees unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying 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 court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion also rejected any basis for questioning Judge Hamilton’s impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.

Disposition

The cases were dismissed 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.