Bonilla v. Lloyd

Background

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

Filing-Fee Ruling

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 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 show such danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Grounds for Dismissal

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the underlying conviction-related or case-handling claims on their merits. It also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Because the court disposed of the matters based on filing-fee eligibility and other threshold legal grounds rather than deciding the underlying claims, this is a procedural order.