Bonilla v. Judges

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. He is described as a condemned prisoner and has a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel. He is also represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants. The opinion states that Bonilla sought relief regarding courts.

Filing-fee status

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 at the time of filing. Accordingly, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal barriers 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 the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion did not resolve the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits.

Recusal request and case closure

Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, but the opinion states that he presented no legitimate basis for questioning her impartiality. Judge Hamilton declined to recuse, or step aside, because the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not itself establish a reasonable question about her impartiality. She ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.