Bonilla v. Averill

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various federal judges, state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies. The opinion says the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his filings in state and federal courts.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-Fee Ruling and Legal Bars

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fees, the court held that he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees 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 explain how each cited rule applied to each case.

Disposition

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. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The opinion addressed a recusal issue because Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case. It stated that the filings did not provide a basis to question the judge’s impartiality and that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.