Bonilla v. Court Clerk's Office

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is also described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, where he has appointed counsel, and as represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and court officials and sought relief concerning courts.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without paying only if, when the complaint is filed, he is in immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each principle as applied to each case.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that these were not cases in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. Citing the duty of a judge to sit absent legitimate grounds for recusal, the court did not recuse. Judge Hamilton directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.