Bonilla v. Maier

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaints were nearly identical. They named various federal and state judges and court officials as defendants and sought relief concerning courts.

The order states that Bonilla is a condemned prisoner with a pending federal petition challenging his custody, in which he has appointed counsel. It also states that he is represented by counsel in state-court proceedings challenging his custody.

Filing-Fee Status and Legal Bars

The court stated that Bonilla had been disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show imminent danger at that time. Bonilla therefore could not proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court further stated that, even if it granted an application to proceed without paying the fee, the lawsuits would be barred under the legal rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not describe the application of each rule separately.

Disposition

The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous filings. The order notes that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in one case but presented no legitimate reason for the judge to step aside.

The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.