Bonilla v. Simmons

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants. The opinion says he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal courts. It also notes that he had a pending federal habeas petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without the Filing Fee

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. As a result, he 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 fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under principles and decisions identified as 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 challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his other cases.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. The court additionally rejected the argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings.