Bonilla v. Reno

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified by the court as a state prisoner, filed multiple lawsuits without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue state actors for alleged violations of federal rights. He named various state courts and state officials as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases.

The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Filing-fee status and dismissal

The court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction applies unless a prisoner shows that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been 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 separately analyze each case or claim under those authorities.

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. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.