Bonilla v. In re Being Declared a Vexatious Litigant

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases were assigned the following numbers: 24-cv-2631-PJH, 24-cv-2632-PJH, 24-cv-2633-PJH, 24-cv-2634-PJH, 24-cv-2643-PJH, 24-cv-2644-PJH, 24-cv-2646-PJH, 24-cv-2647-PJH, 24-cv-2648-PJH, 24-cv-2649-PJH, 24-cv-2650-PJH, 24-cv-2651-PJH, 24-cv-2652-PJH, 24-cv-2712-PJH, 24-cv-2713-PJH, 24-cv-2714-PJH, 24-cv-2715-PJH, 24-cv-2741-PJH, 24-cv-2983-PJH, and 24-cv-3010-PJH.

The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various state courts and federal judges. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases. The opinion states that he was a condemned prisoner, had a pending federal petition challenging his custody with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court addressed Bonilla's request, or possible request, to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated the relevant prior dismissals generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless, when the complaint is filed, the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court stated that Bonilla had already been disqualified from proceeding under that exception unless he satisfied the imminent-danger requirement.

The court found that the allegations did not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger when he filed the complaints. It therefore held that he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which of those authorities applied to which case or claim.

Ruling and Case Closure

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The court additionally stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality. The opinion does not identify a separate recusal motion or state that a particular recusal motion was denied.

Judge and Procedural Posture

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on May 29, 2024. The ruling disposed of the cases based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.