Hays v. Bonfiglio

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); and CAUTIONING Joshua Rebel Hays that if he files another meritless lawsuit, he will be fined, sanctioned, and/or restricted. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 4/15/2013. (lyf) Modified on 4/16/2013 to note cc of Opinion and Order sent to Joshua Rebel Hays (lyf).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JOSHUA REBEL HAYS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID BONFIGLIO,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-197 PS

OPINION AND ORDER
On March 13, 2012, Joshua Rebel Hays, a pro se plaintiff, filed this lawsuit against
Elkhart Superior Court Judge David Bonfiglio seeking an injunction to remove Judge Bonfiglio
from presiding over his State criminal trial [DE 1]. Hays argues that Judge Bonfiglio will not
give him a fair trial. Days later, on March 25, 2013, he filed a motion seeking to amend to add
the State of Indiana as a defendant and a claim that Indiana Code 33-43-2-1 violates the Indiana
Constitution [DE 3]. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(2) requires that I dismiss this case.
Federal courts do not interfere with state criminal proceedings except in extraordinary
circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “The Younger abstention doctrine
requires federal courts to abstain from enjoining ongoing state proceedings that are (1) judicial in
nature, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) offer an adequate opportunity for review of
constitutional claims, (4) so long as no extraordinary circumstances exist which would make
abstention inappropriate.” Green v. Benden, 281 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2002).

The criminal prosecution of Hays is a judicial proceeding that implicates important State
interests. Even if I were to assume that Judge Bonfiglio is biased and will not afford Hays a fair
trial, the State of Indiana has several means by which Hays can raise those claims in the State
courts – including a motion for a change of judge pursuant to Ind. Crim. R. 12(B) and a notice of
appeal. Finally, Hays has not alleged any extraordinary circumstances that make abstention
inappropriate. “Certain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of
having to defend against a single criminal prosecution, [are] not by themselves . . . considered
‘irreparable’ in the special legal sense of that term.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46.
Moreover, though Hays may amend his complaint as a matter of course, see Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), his claim against the State of Indiana that an Indiana statute violates
the Indiana constitution is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. &
Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121 (1984) (“[A] claim that state officials violated state law in
carrying out their official responsibilities is a claim against the State that is protected by the
Eleventh Amendment.) Even if I had proper jurisdiction over some other claim in this case, I
could not exercise pendent jurisdiction over this State Constitutional claim. Id. (“A federal court
must examine each claim in a case to see if the court’s jurisdiction over that claim is barred by
the Eleventh Amendment”). Thus, it was legally frivolous to have brought this case in this court.
This might be news to some litigants, but it is not news to Hays. This is the ninth case
that he has filed in this court. In State of Indiana v. Hays, 3:09-cr-076 (N.D. Ind. filed June 12,
2009), Hays attempted to remove his state criminal case from Elkhart Superior Court. In
dismissing that case three days later, the court cited Younger and explained that federal courts do
not interfere with pending State criminal prosecutions. In Hays v. Brooks, 3:09-cv-109 (N.D.

2

Ind. filed March 18, 2009), Hays was told that, as a pretrial detainee, habeas corpus relief was
not available until he had exhausted all available State procedures. In Hays v. Wicks, 3:12-cv283 (N.D. Ind. filed June 7, 2012), Hays sued a State court judge who had found him in criminal
contempt. Hays was told that judges have judicial immunity. In Hays v. Owens, 3:13-cv-093
(N.D. Ind. filed February 12, 2013), Hays sued a conservation officer in an attempt to overturn
his conviction for fishing without a licence and was told that this court did not have the authority
to directly review his conviction.
Given his history and experience, Hays knows that suing Judge Bonfiglio is meritless. As
such, his decision to bring this suit is malicious as well as legally frivolous. Hays did not – and
has never – pre-paid the filing fee for any of his cases. “Abusers of the judicial process are not
entitled to sue and appeal without paying the normal filing fees – indeed, are not entitled to sue
and appeal, period. Abuses of process are not merely not to be subsidized; they are to be
sanctioned.” Free v. United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989). The United States
Supreme Court has stated approvingly that, “Federal courts have both the inherent power and
constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to
carry out Article III functions.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 185 n. 8 (1989) citing In re
Martin-Trigona, 737 F. 2d 1254, 1261 (2nd Cir. 1984). Therefore, in addition to dismissing this
case as malicious, Hays is cautioned that if he persists in filing meritless lawsuits, he will be
fined, sanctioned, and/or restricted.
For the foregoing reasons, the court:
(1) DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); and

3

(2) CAUTIONS Joshua Rebel Hays that if he files another meritless lawsuit, he will be
fined, sanctioned, and/or restricted.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: April 15, 2013
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4