Bonilla v. Casse

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that permits certain claims against state actors. The defendants included federal judges, state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies. Bonilla’s complaints presented similar claims concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases in state and federal court.

The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition. Those proceedings were not the matters decided by this order.

Rulings

The court ruled that Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found that his allegations 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 in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court accordingly dismissed the cases with prejudice.

Recusal and case closure

Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases. The order stated that the filings did not present a basis for reasonably questioning the judge’s impartiality because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 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.