Bonilla v. Skillman

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state 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 state and federal cases had been handled.

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

Filing-fee ruling

The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars a prisoner with the required history of dismissed or frivolous cases from proceeding without prepaying the fee unless the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing.

Other legal bars and disposition

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying filing 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 therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality.

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