Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed ten nearly identical civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeded without a lawyer in these cases. The complaints named several counties and state officials and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction. The opinion also states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his detention with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state court proceedings.

Ruling

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that payment waiver may proceed only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fees.

The court further ruled that, even if a payment-waiver application had been 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 opinion does not provide a separate analysis of which rule applied to which claim. The court dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and ordered the clerk to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.

Judge and disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order. The disposition was a dismissal with prejudice of all ten listed cases; the court did not reach the underlying legal claims on their merits.