Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, described in the order as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal court cases. The order also notes that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his custody and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.

Filing-fee status and legal bars

The court addressed Bonilla’s requests, or possible requests, to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying 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 make that showing.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and cases identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not decide the merits of Bonilla’s underlying conviction-related claims.

Recusal and disposition

The court also rejected any suggestion that Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because of Bonilla’s repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases and that she was the fourth judge assigned to his cases.

Judge Hamilton ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.