Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows certain claims against government officials. He represented himself in these cases. The complaints were nearly identical, named various federal and state judges as defendants, and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases had been handled. The opinion also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule permits a disqualified prisoner to proceed without the fee only if the complaint shows that the prisoner was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such a danger. Therefore, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by legal doctrines 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 separately explain how each cited doctrine applied to each case, but it concluded that the cases were barred.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected the concern that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings, stating that no legitimate basis for recusal had been shown. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.