Bonilla v. Manoukian

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, described as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims against various federal and state judges and other officials. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts had handled his other cases. The opinion states that he had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Prepaying Filing Fees

The court addressed whether Bonilla could proceed without prepaying the filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding this way unless he showed that he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court concluded that the allegations did not show such a danger.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further ruled that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without prepaying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.

Ruling

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