Bonilla v. Maier

Background

The order covers multiple related civil-rights cases brought by Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. The complaints were filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and named various federal judges, state judges, and counties as defendants. The court said the complaints presented very similar claims seeking relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the handling of his other petitions and cases.

The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court, where he had appointed counsel, and that he was represented by counsel in state proceedings challenging his imprisonment.

Fee-waiver status and other legal bars

To the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) disqualified him from doing so unless he showed that he was in immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.

The court further stated that, even if permission 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 order did not provide separate claim-by-claim analysis of those rules.

Ruling

Judge Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The court also stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the judge’s impartiality. 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.