Bonilla v. Lee

Background

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

The opinion states that Bonilla has a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and is represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings. The court also noted his history of filing similar cases.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from proceeding without paying may do so only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court concluded that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in the opinion: 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.

Disposition

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 order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.