Bonilla v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that he is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his detention or conviction in the same court, where he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his detention or conviction.

The complaints named various state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way state and federal courts handled his self-represented petitions and other cases.

Court’s analysis

The court addressed Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner previously disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if, when the complaint was filed, he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court determined that the complaints did not show such danger. The opinion cites two earlier proceedings in stating that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying under that statute.

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s requests to proceed without paying were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of how each cited rule applied.

The court also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not provide a basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality or require the judge to step aside.

Disposition

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.