Bonilla v. Wilken

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He is also described as a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his detention, for which he has appointed counsel, and as represented by counsel in state-court proceedings. The complaints were nearly identical. They named dozens of federal and state judges and various state courts as defendants and sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the way his state and federal cases had been handled.

Proceeding Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court explained that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger. It therefore held that Bonilla could not proceed under that payment exception.

Other Legal Bars

The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying filing fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not decide the truth of Bonilla’s underlying claims; it disposed of the cases based on these filing and legal-bar grounds.

Ruling

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