Bonilla v. Jackson

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple self-represented civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named various state courts and state officials as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.

The court noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the district, in which he had appointed counsel, and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without Filing Fees

Bonilla sought, or potentially sought, permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court ruled that he was disqualified from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that his allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he could not proceed without paying the required fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further ruled that, even if Bonilla had been allowed to proceed without filing fees, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal doctrines or authorities identified by the court: 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 analysis of those bars.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

The court additionally ruled that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not create a reasonable basis to question the assigned judge’s impartiality. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore did not recuse herself.