Bonilla v. Ortez

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal and state court judges and several municipalities as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.

The opinion also noted 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.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s effort to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said he had been disqualified from proceeding without paying those fees unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application 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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately explain how each cited rule applied to each case.

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

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and directed the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on January 27, 2021.