Bonilla v. Freeman

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner disqualified from that fee-waiver status may proceed without prepayment only if he shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court concluded that Bonilla’s allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.

The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would 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 also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. A footnote states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases.

Ruling

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 those closed cases.