Bonilla v. Simmons

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed five related civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal and state court judges as defendants. The opinion says that Bonilla presented similar claims in the cases, seeking relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other habeas petitions and court cases. The opinion also notes that he had appointed counsel in a pending federal habeas petition and counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

Bonilla sought, or potentially sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court stated that he had previously been disqualified from that status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court concluded that the allegations did not show the required imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if the filing-fee applications 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 order does not provide a separate merits determination for each complaint.

Recusal issue

The court also addressed whether the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It concluded that these were not cases requiring the judge to step aside.

Disposition

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