Bonilla v. Seeborg

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The opinion identifies two case numbers: 21-cv-04520-PJH and 21-cv-06325-PJH. Bonilla is described as a condemned prisoner. He also had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Bonilla's lawsuits presented similar claims. They sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases by state and federal courts. In one of the cases, he named a federal judge as the defendant.

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla's request, or possible request, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said he had been disqualified from proceeding without paying because of earlier proceedings, unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified 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 claims on their merits.

Recusal and disposition

The court also stated that the cases did not present a situation in which the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It therefore did not recuse the assigned judge.

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, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.