Bonilla v. Healey

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included various state courts and state officials. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his pro se habeas petitions and other cases. The opinion 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.

Filing-fee status

To the extent Bonilla sought to proceed in forma pauperis—without prepaying filing fees—the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed in forma pauperis in these cases.

Other barriers and ruling

The court further stated that, even if a fee-waiver application were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not reach the underlying merits of Bonilla’s claims. It 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 ordered that the cases be dismissed with prejudice. 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.