Bonilla v. Kalpacoff

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against people acting under state law. The opinion identifies Bonilla as a state prisoner and says he was proceeding without a lawyer in these cases. He is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, for which he has appointed counsel, and he is also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his various petitions and other cases by state and federal courts. The opinion lists multiple case numbers, including 20-cv-07866-PJH and numerous other cases.

Filing-fee status and claimed barriers

The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger at the relevant time.

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were 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 does not separately explain which cited doctrine applies to which complaint.

Disposition

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

Classification rationale

This is a procedural order. The court disposed of the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and asserted legal barriers rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.