Bonilla v. Clark

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes Bonilla as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner. He had a pending federal petition challenging his custody, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. In these cases, he named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. His requested relief concerned his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his other cases.

Fee Status

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying filing fees, unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore concluded that Bonilla could not proceed without paying filing fees.

Other Legal Bars

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each rule's application to each complaint.

Ruling

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 frivolous nature of the filings did not create a basis to question the undersigned judge's impartiality, even though Bonilla named that judge as a defendant in one case.