Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is described as a condemned prisoner who has a pending federal petition challenging his detention, with appointed counsel, and state-court proceedings in which he is represented by counsel. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal and state judges and state courts as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

Rulings

The court stated 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 under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton’s impartiality or require her recusal.

Effect of the Order

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 opinion states that Bonilla has an extensive history of filing similar cases, but it does not separately explain how each cited legal doctrine applies to each individual complaint.