Bonilla v. Margulies

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law used to seek relief for certain violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction, the handling of his self-filed state and federal petitions challenging his detention, and other cases handled by state and federal courts.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention in the same court with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning his detention.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

Bonilla sought, or potentially sought, permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court said he had already been disqualified from that status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the time of filing. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if permission to proceed without paying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not separately analyze each rule’s application to each complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.