Bonilla v. Hamilton

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order covers the following case numbers: 21-cv-00651-PJH, 21-cv-00652-PJH, 21-cv-00654-PJH, 21-cv-00655-PJH, 21-cv-00656-PJH, 21-cv-00657-PJH, 21-cv-00658-PJH, 21-cv-00659-PJH, 21-cv-00660-PJH, 21-cv-00661-PJH, 21-cv-00662-PJH, 21-cv-00676-PJH, and 21-cv-00677-PJH.

Bonilla named various federal and state court judges as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Filing-fee status

The court considered Bonilla’s possible request to proceed without paying the filing fees, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant qualifying dismissals generally cannot use that procedure unless he shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding under that provision unless he met the imminent-danger exception.

The court found that the allegations did not show that Bonilla faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines. It cited Heck v. Humphrey, which can bar civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction or sentence; Younger v. Harris, concerning federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; Demos v. U.S. District Court; and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court did not conduct a merits determination of Bonilla’s underlying challenges.

Recusal issue and disposition

Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, case number 21-cv-00657-PJH. The court stated that the complaints did not provide a basis to reasonably question the undersigned judge’s impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It also cited the rule that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.

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