Bonilla v. Clay

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The order addresses the case numbers listed in the opinion, including 21-cv-01638-PJH, 21-cv-01639-PJH, 21-cv-01640-PJH, 21-cv-01641-PJH, 21-cv-01681-PJH, 21-cv-01682-PJH, 21-cv-01683-PJH, 21-cv-01684-PJH, 21-cv-01685-PJH, 21-cv-01870-PJH, 21-cv-01872-PJH, 21-cv-01874-PJH, 21-cv-01875-PJH, 21-cv-01876-PJH, and 21-cv-01952-PJH.

Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla's underlying conviction or his other prisoner petitions. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal prisoner petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court prisoner proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction

The court addressed Bonilla's possible requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from fee-free filing generally may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla's allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other grounds identified by the court

The court further stated that, even if a fee-free filing request were 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 opinion did not separately analyze each of those authorities in the quoted order. These grounds concern legal limits on the lawsuits rather than a decision that Bonilla's underlying claims were correct or incorrect.

Recusal issue

The court also concluded that these were not cases in which the undersigned judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The court noted that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one case, but that complaint made no specific allegations against the judge in the portion of the opinion provided.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Because the order disposed of the cases on filing-fee and other legal-bar grounds without deciding the underlying civil-rights claims, this is a procedural order.