Bonilla v. Chhabria

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and counties. The court stated that the complaints presented very similar claims seeking relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases.

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

Filing-Fee Status and Case Bars

To the extent Bonilla sought to proceed in forma pauperis—without paying the court’s filing fees—the court said he was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court concluded that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees 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.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The order also rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings, stating that absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide assigned cases.

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 lists multiple related case numbers and states collectively that the cases were dismissed with prejudice; it does not provide separate reasoning for each case.