Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various state courts and judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Proceeding Without the Filing Fee

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications 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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.

Recusal Request and Disposition

Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case, Case No. 23-cv-5965-PJH, and requested her recusal. Judge Hamilton denied the request, stating that the arguments were meritless and that the repetitive filings did not provide a basis for questioning her impartiality.

Judge Hamilton 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 the closed cases.