Bonilla v. United States District Court, Northern

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion covers case numbers 23-cv-4540-PJH, 23-cv-5164-PJH, 23-cv-5165-PJH, 23-cv-5278-PJH, 23-cv-5299-PJH, 23-cv-5300-PJH, 23-cv-5350-PJH, 23-cv-5389-PJH, 23-cv-5390-PJH, 23-cv-5391-PJH, 23-cv-5393-PJH, 23-cv-5394-PJH, 23-cv-5397-PJH, 23-cv-5398-PJH, 23-cv-5399-PJH, 23-cv-5400-PJH, 23-cv-5458-PJH, 23-cv-5459-PJH, 23-cv-5460-PJH, 23-cv-5465-PJH, 23-cv-5516-PJH, 23-cv-5517-PJH, 23-cv-5519-PJH, and 23-cv-5520-PJH. He named various federal judges and federal and state courts as defendants. The complaints sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody in the same court, with appointed counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying fees only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the required fees.

The court added that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited in the opinion: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims in Bonilla’s favor or in the defendants’ favor.

The court also rejected any concern that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It cited the rule that, absent legitimate reasons for recusal, a judge has a duty to decide cases assigned to that judge. A footnote states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case but presented no basis for recusal.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on October 30, 2023.