Bonilla v. Wright

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state officials. The complaints presented very similar claims. According to the order, Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his various state and federal petitions and other cases. The order also notes that he had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

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

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order does not provide a separate explanation of how each cited rule applied to each individual case.

Disposition

The court 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 those closed cases.

Impartiality and Recusal

The court also addressed whether its impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. It concluded that these were not cases requiring the undersigned judge to step aside, citing the general duty of a judge to hear assigned cases absent legitimate reasons for recusal.