Bonilla v. Jackson

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He named various federal judges, state judges, and superior courts as defendants. According to the opinion, the cases presented very similar claims and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or his various requests for habeas relief. The opinion also notes that he had a pending federal habeas petition in the same 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 without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

Other Bars to the Lawsuits

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 provide a separate claim-by-claim explanation of which cited doctrine applied to which lawsuit.

Ruling

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also stated that the cases were not ones in which the assigned judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.