Bonilla v. Yabreno

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed eight similar civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants included various federal and state court judges and several municipalities. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases.

The order also notes that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, for which he has appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Reasoning

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction has an exception when a prisoner shows that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations 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 had been 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 provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.

The court also concluded that the judge’s impartiality could not reasonably be questioned merely because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings, and therefore did not identify a basis for the judge to step aside.

Disposition

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