Bonilla v. Thompson

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating federal rights. The complaints named various state courts and state officials as defendants. They raised similar issues concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his petitions and other cases in state and federal court.

Filing-fee ruling

The court held that Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits that option for prisoners who have accumulated qualifying prior dismissals. The exception applies when the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds for dismissal

The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying 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 decide the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of his claims against the defendants.

Disposition

Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for reasonably questioning the judge’s impartiality.