Bonilla v. Jackson

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights lawsuits against government officials. The order covers the case numbers listed in the caption, including 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. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and county officials. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

The order noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

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 statute prevents a prisoner with qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds stated by the court

The court added 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 order did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.

The court also addressed the fact that Bonilla named the presiding judge as a defendant in one case. It stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a situation in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, and cited the rule that a judge generally has a duty to decide assigned cases absent legitimate grounds for recusal.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dated and signed the order on April 14, 2023.