Bonilla v. White

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. The opinion states that Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other cases in state and federal court. It also states that he had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Filing-fee status and legal barriers

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred that status 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 imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 does not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.

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. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.

Scope and naming note

The supplied case name identifies the matter as “Bonilla v. White,” but the opinion’s caption identifies the defendants as “JUDGE KELLY V. SIMMONS et al.” This summary follows the caption in the opinion.