Bonilla v. David Anthony et. al.

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and other government officials as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other cases had been handled by state and federal courts.

The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same district, with appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Filing-fee restriction

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

Other legal barriers

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not resolve the underlying civil-rights allegations on their merits.

Ruling and case closure

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The court separately stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the undersigned judge's impartiality or require recusal. The order noted Bonilla's extensive history of filing similar cases.