Bonilla v. Jackson

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is described as a condemned prisoner and has a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. He is also represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

The complaints named various federal and state court judges as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other petitions and cases by state and federal courts.

Court’s 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 statute allows a prisoner with that disqualification to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such danger.

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 legal rules and precedents 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 separately analyze each complaint or claim.

The court also stated that its impartiality could not reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the principle that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.

Disposition

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