Bonilla v. Fournier

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner representing himself, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaints named federal judges, state judges, court staff, and state and federal agencies as defendants. Bonilla raised similar claims concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his self-represented petitions and other cases.

The opinion states that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his confinement, for which he had appointed counsel. It also states that he was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Filing-fee status and dismissal

Bonilla was subject to the three-strikes limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule generally prevents a prisoner with qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that these complaints did not show such a danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

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, or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion does not separately explain which principle applied to which case.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the argument that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.