Bonilla v. Culver

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government 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 court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court with appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his imprisonment.

Rulings

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

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee 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 provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited rule applied.

Disposition

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

The court separately rejected any claim that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion noted that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her in those cases.