Bonilla v. Gonzalez-Rogers

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The opinion identifies Bonilla as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner. He named various federal and state judges and other officials as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

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

Reasons for dismissal

The court addressed Bonilla's ability to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding IFP 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 imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an IFP application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules and precedents identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion therefore did not allow these cases to proceed.

Ruling and case administration

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