Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were filed in the following related cases: 23-cv-1282-PJH, 23-cv-1415-PJH, 23-cv-1416-PJH, 23-cv-1575-PJH, 23-cv-1576-PJH, 23-cv-1577-PJH, 23-cv-1579-PJH, 23-cv-1580-PJH, 23-cv-1581-PJH, 23-cv-1582-PJH, 23-cv-1625-PJH, 23-cv-1627-PJH, 23-cv-1667-PJH, 23-cv-1668-PJH, 23-cv-1669-PJH, 23-cv-1670-PJH, 23-cv-1671-PJH, 23-cv-1673-PJH, 23-cv-1728-PJH, 23-cv-1729-PJH, 23-cv-1730-PJH, 23-cv-1731-PJH, and 23-cv-1732-PJH.

Bonilla named various federal and state judges and county officials as defendants. The opinion says the complaints presented nearly identical claims and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Court’s analysis

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 prisoner with that disqualification to proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several doctrines and precedents: the rule concerning civil claims that would undermine a criminal conviction, the rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings, and other restrictions identified in the opinion. The court did not reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims.

The opinion also addressed judicial impartiality. It stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a situation in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. A footnote states that Bonilla named the undersigned judge as a defendant in one of the cases, but the provided text does not include the remainder of that sentence.

Disposition

The court 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.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on April 14, 2023.