Bonilla v. Attorney General

Background

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

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

Filing-fee restriction and other barriers

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee unless he showed that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules or doctrines discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide separate claim-by-claim analyses for the multiple cases.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the multiple cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases.