Bonilla v. Lloyd

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases named various federal judges, state judges, municipalities, and other court officials as defendants. The complaints raised similar issues concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his petitions and other cases.

The order states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, for which he had appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in related state proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner with qualifying prior filings from proceeding without the fee unless the complaint shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger when the complaints were filed. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other Legal Bars

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s applications to proceed without paying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed 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 explanation of how each cited rule applied.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the cases were not ones in which the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.