Bonilla v. Johnson

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Pro se” means he filed without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases.

The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition concerning his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Proceeding Without Prepayment of Fees

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying filing fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction applied unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints.

The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at the time of filing. It therefore determined that Bonilla could not proceed without prepaying the filing fees.

Other Legal Bars and Ruling

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not conduct a merits determination of the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or the handling of his cases.

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