v. Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed numerous civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. He sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the way his other state and federal court cases had been handled.

The opinion states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction, in which he had appointed counsel. It also states that counsel represented him in state court proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had been disqualified from using that procedure unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules and decisions cited in the opinion, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned merely because Bonilla had filed repetitive and frivolous cases, including some cases naming the judge as a defendant without specific allegations.

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.