Bonilla v. Reyes

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identifies him as a condemned prisoner. He also had a pending federal habeas petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

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 handling of his other cases.

Ruling

The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The allegations did not show imminent danger, so he could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.

Other Orders

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton rejected the suggestion that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The court noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those cases.

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