Bonilla v. Blum

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple 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 seeking relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his self-represented petitions and other cases in state and federal court.

The opinion also stated that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. Those matters were separate from the civil-rights cases addressed in this order.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines and authorities identified as 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 explaining which doctrine applied to which allegation.

Ruling

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 additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court additionally ruled that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the judge’s impartiality.