Bonilla v. Hamilton

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. They named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The court noted that Bonilla also had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the district, where he had appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.

Court’s reasoning

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the authorities it cited: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide further explanation of how each cited authority applied to the individual cases.

The court also rejected any concern 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 of the cases.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases 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.