Bonilla v. Wilken

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints were nearly identical. Bonilla named dozens of federal and state judges as defendants and sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his other state and federal cases had been handled.

The order also noted that Bonilla was a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition concerning his custody or conviction, in which he had appointed counsel. It further stated that he was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Rulings

The court addressed Bonilla’s possible requests to proceed without paying filing fees. It stated that he had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits that status for certain repeat litigants unless they show that they faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when they filed. The court found that the complaints did not show such danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

The court separately 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, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any additional documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on March 14, 2022. The opinion does not identify which specific claims were barred by each cited legal rule.