Bonilla v. De Santos

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state officials. The complaints were filed without a lawyer and presented similar claims. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases. The order states that he had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without Filing Fees

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That restriction can be avoided only when a prisoner shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fee.

Ruling

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings created a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. The clerk was ordered 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.