Bonilla v. Casse

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, and counties as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal court cases.

The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition in this court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Filing-fee issue

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so 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 such danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other legal bars

The court further held that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without paying the fees, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not resolve the underlying allegations in Bonilla’s favor or against him on their factual merits.

Disposition

Judge Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The court separately determined that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the undersigned judge’s impartiality, and it did not recuse itself.