Bonilla v. Shubb

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. 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.

The opinion states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning such a petition.

Filing-fee restriction

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

Other grounds for dismissal

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 identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.

Ruling and case administration

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected any suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The opinion notes that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.

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.