Bonilla v. Spero

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner facing a death sentence, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints named various federal and state court judges as defendants. They raised similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Fee-Waiver Status

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision disqualifies a prisoner from proceeding without fees after qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner alleges that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court determined that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.

Other Grounds and Disposition

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s fee-waiver application had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.

Recusal Issue

Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, but the court stated that the complaint made no specific allegations against her. Judge Hamilton concluded that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.