Bonilla v. Averill

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order lists numerous related case numbers. The court said the complaints were nearly identical and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. The order also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

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

Other Bars Identified by the Court

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal principles identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not provide separate analysis of each cited principle.

Disposition

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