Bonilla v. Spillman

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The opinion identifies Bonilla as a condemned prisoner who has a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment, with appointed counsel, and state-court proceedings in which he is also represented by counsel. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, state courts, and law-enforcement officials, and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

Filing-fee status

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

Other legal bars

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and precedents identified as Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those bars.

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 the closed cases. The court also rejected the argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The order was signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.