Bonilla v. Proietti

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government officials. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other state and federal cases. The opinion also states that he is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, for which he has appointed counsel, and that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court explained that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under principles 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 bars.

The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one of the cases.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.