Bonilla v. Neff

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The complaints were nearly identical. They sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of various petitions and other cases in state and federal court. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.

Fee-waiver status

Bonilla was disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits that status for prisoners who have previously had qualifying cases dismissed. The exception applies when the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed under that fee-waiver process.

Other legal barriers

The court further concluded that, even if Bonilla’s fee-waiver applications were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and statutes, including the rule limiting civil-rights damages claims that would undermine an existing conviction, the rule requiring federal courts to abstain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings, and other cited doctrines concerning federal habeas proceedings and interference with court cases. The opinion did not resolve the underlying validity of Bonilla’s conviction or the merits of his complaints.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Hamilton signed the order on December 1, 2020.