Bonilla v. Clay

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state officials for violating federal rights. He represented himself in these civil-rights cases and sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The complaints named various federal or state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions. The opinion also states that Bonilla had appointed counsel in a pending federal habeas petition and counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Fee-waiver ruling

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly called the “three-strikes” rule. That rule bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. It therefore ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other barriers and disposition

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s requests to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines and authorities it cited, including Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

Impartiality statement

The court also stated that these cases did not present circumstances in which the presiding judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.