Bonilla v. Estep

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled.

The order states that Bonilla was also a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court, where he had appointed counsel. It further states that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Filing Fees

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without those fees unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.

Other Legal Bars

The court added that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not conduct a merits determination of Bonilla’s underlying claims.

Ruling and Case Closure

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected any argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.

The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.