Bonilla v. Ortez

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases had nearly identical claims and named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Filing-fee restriction

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction permits such a prisoner to proceed without paying only if he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.

Other legal bars and disposition

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The opinion also rejected the argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings; a footnote states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but made no specific allegations against her.