Bonilla v. Lee

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints while representing himself. The complaints were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and named various federal and state court judges as defendants. The court said the cases presented very similar claims seeking relief related to Bonilla’s underlying conviction or to the handling of his self-filed habeas petitions and other cases.

The opinion also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.

Proceeding Without Paying Filing Fees

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. As a result, Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying fees 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 provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.

Ruling

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also rejected the suggestion that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings created a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. A footnote stated that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one of the cases, but that complaint made no specific allegations against her.

The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.