Bonilla v. Smiley

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner sentenced to death, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same district, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings involving a similar challenge. The opinion also noted Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases.

Fee-waiver status and legal barriers

The court addressed Bonilla's requests, or possible requests, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless the complaint alleges that the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding under that fee-waiver provision unless he met that exception.

The court found that the allegations did not show that Bonilla was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules and precedents identified in the opinion, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not analyze the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.

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 those closed cases.

Impartiality issue

The court addressed whether the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of Bonilla's repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The court concluded that these circumstances did not require recusal. The opinion noted that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but did not provide, in the quoted text, a basis for recusal.

The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on January 29, 2024.