Bonilla v. Casse

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government officials. He filed the cases without a lawyer and named various federal and state court judges as defendants. The opinion says that the cases presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other court cases.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings. The cited earlier proceedings are not the basis of the court’s disposition described here.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

Bonilla sought, or might have sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying those fees unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal rules and decisions: Heck v. Humphrey, which limits civil-rights claims that would undermine a conviction or sentence; Younger v. Harris, which generally limits federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and rules discussed in Demos v. U.S. District Court and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each case or identify which specific claim was subject to which rule.

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 those closed cases.

Impartiality

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton stated that these cases did not present circumstances in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned merely because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, she said that, absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge.