Bonilla v. Tavill

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion says the complaints presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. It also states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without Filing Fees

Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction permits such a prisoner to proceed without fees only if the complaint shows that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court found that the complaints did not show imminent danger at the relevant time.

Other Bars Identified by the Court

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not conduct a merits determination of the underlying claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.