Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law used to bring certain civil-rights claims against government actors. He filed the complaints without a lawyer. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials. The complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.

The opinion also notes that Bonilla has a pending federal petition challenging his conviction in the same court with appointed counsel and is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that conviction.

Court’s Reasoning

The court stated that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis—without prepaying filing fees—unless he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under legal rules identified in the opinion, including those discussed in 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 assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submits in those closed cases. The opinion does not separately describe a different disposition for each listed case number.